Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[djohn2oo8]

975735933050982400
State charges can be a mothafucka.

[clambake]

tictoc ha ha

[RandomGuy]

The Cambridge Analytica Scandal Is What Facebook-Powered Election Cheating Looks Like

The Trump campaign’s data firm got its hands on 50 million Facebook users’ information—and

then reportedly lied about deleting it.

https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/the-cambridge-analytica-scandal-is-what-facebook-powered-election-cheating-looks-like.html

I have no doubt the Cambridge Analytica data, CA run by a Russian financed by Mercer, and Trash's digital campaign data, managed by Kushner, in one form or another, was given to Pootin's cyber army




This is the level of collusion that is most plausible, and plays into Russian strengths.

[RandomGuy]

Dennison keeps saying Mueller's investigators are Democrats like it's some magical mandate that disqualifies them. His theory is laughably myopic, and I'm laughing at him and you.

:lmao Chris

:lmao Chris

[djohn2oo8]

975751302469873664

[boutons_deux]

975735933050982400
State charges can be a mothafucka.

And non-pardonable by Trash

[vy65]

Citizen X ChrisfromST
I Support Trump! Gowdy/Chaffetz 2024!!!

Texas, USA
spurstalk.com
Joined August 2017

[vy65]

Crofl "his" website is spurstalk.

You can't make this shit up.

[Reck]

975780196396695552

This scorched earth approach tells me one thing. Trump knows he's going down with some degree of certainty and he's trying to take down the FBI with him.

This is going to get ugly. Time for det popcorn.

[djohn2oo8]

825517915952783361
Hmmm. 1/28/2017. Aged quite exquisitely.

[Pavlov]

Dude bases all his hires on who he remembers seeing on cable tv.

[Reck]

Dude bases all his hires on who he remembers seeing on cable tv.

That's why Chris is out there trying all social networks.

Citizen X for Trump baby! Hire me.

[djohn2oo8]

975780196396695552

This scorched earth approach tells me one thing. Trump knows he's going down with some degree of certainty and he's trying to take down the FBI with him.

This is going to get ugly. Time for det popcorn.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-z1l_aOjsl74/UZvf0Ck2DnI/AAAAAAAACAI/O_vgrWwcw-o/s400/underestimate+my+power.gif

The part where Trump tries a maneuver that gets his legs chopped off.

[TSA]

975780196396695552

This scorched earth approach tells me one thing. Trump knows he's going down with some degree of certainty and he's trying to take down the FBI with him.

This is going to get ugly. Time for det popcorn.https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-politicization-of-the-fbi/

The Politicization of the FBI

Over the past year, facts have emerged that suggest there was a plot by high-ranking FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials in the Obama administration, acting under color of law, to exonerate Hillary Clinton of federal crimes and then, if she lost the election, to frame Donald Trump and his campaign for colluding with Russia to steal the presidency. This conduct was not based on mere bias, as has been widely claimed, but rather on deeply felt animus toward Trump and his agenda.

In the course of this plot, FBI Director James Comey, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, Strzok’s paramour and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, FBI General Counsel James Baker, and DOJ senior official Bruce Ohr—perhaps among others—compromised federal law enforcement to such an extent that the American public is losing trust. A recent CBS News poll finds 48 percent of Americans believe that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia collusion probe is “politically motivated,” a stunning conclusion. And 63 percent of polled voters in a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll believe that the FBI withheld vital information from Congress about the Clinton and Russia collusion investigations.

I spent my early legal career as a federal prosecutor. I later supervised hundreds of prosecutors and prosecutions as a U.S. Attorney and as an Independent Counsel. I have never witnessed investigations so fraught with failure to fulfill the basic elements of a criminal probe as those conducted under James Comey. Not since former Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray deep-sixed evidence during Watergate has the head of the FBI been so discredited as Comey is now.

The Case of the Clinton Emails
The Hillary Clinton email scandal began in 2013 with the U.S. House of Representatives investigation into the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. It was during that investigation that accessing Secretary of State Clinton’s emails became an issue. But it wasn’t until The New York Times broke the story on March 2, 2015, that Clinton had a secret, personal server that things really took off.

Thousands of emails that the House at first requested, then subpoenaed, conveniently disappeared—remember those reports about BleachBit and the smashing of Clinton’s numerous phones with hammers? Clinton and her aides were, to say the least, not forthcoming. It was clearly time for the FBI and DOJ to act, using the legal tools at their disposal to secure the emails and other materials the House had subpoenaed. But that didn’t happen.

One tool at their disposal was the grand jury—the sine qua non of a criminal investigation. Grand juries are comprised of 16 to 23 citizens who hear a prosecutor’s case against an alleged criminal. The subject of the investigation is not present during the entire proceeding, which can last up to a year. A grand jury provides investigators with the authority to collect evidence by issuing subpoenas for documents and witnesses. FBI agents and prosecutors cannot themselves demand evidence. Only a grand jury can—or a court, in cases where a subpoena recipient refuses a grand jury’s command to provide documents or to testify.

Incredibly, FBI Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch refused to convene a grand jury during the Clinton investigation. Thus investigators had no authority to subpoena evidence or witnesses. Lacking leverage, Comey then injudiciously granted immunity to five Clinton aides in return for evidence that could have been obtained with a subpoena. Even when Clinton claimed 39 times during a July 2, 2016, interview—an interview led by disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok—that she could not recall certain facts because of a head injury, Comey refused the case agents’ request to subpoena her medical records.

Comey claims he negotiated the immunity deals because of his concern about time. Yet the investigation was opened in the summer of 2015, nearly a year before he cut these deals. Compare this to the DOJ’s handling of four-star Marine General James E. Cartwright, who pleaded guilty in October 2016 to a false statement about leaking classified information to The New York Times. In that case, the DOJ bragged about its use of subpoenas and search warrants.

Not only was there no grand jury, the FBI never issued a search warrant—something it does when there is concern a person will destroy evidence. Clinton deleted half her emails and then claimed, under penalty of perjury, that she had turned over to the government all emails that “were or potentially were” work-related. The FBI later found email chains classified as “secret” or “confidential” that she had not turned over. Still no search warrant was issued.

Comey’s dereliction did not stop at the failure to utilize essential prosecutorial tools. He violated several rules that prosecutors consider sacrosanct:

Comey allowed one lawyer to represent four material witnesses, an arrangement ripe for the four to coordinate testimony.
After needlessly giving immunity to two lawyers representing Clinton, Comey permitted both to sit in on her July 2, 2016, FBI interview—a patent conflict. He claimed he could not control who sat in on the “voluntary” interview. That’s nonsense. He could have convened a grand jury, subpoenaed Clinton, and compelled her to appear and be questioned without a lawyer or else plead the Fifth Amendment.
Comey authorized the destruction of laptop computers that belonged to Clinton’s aides and were under congressional subpoena.
Comey ignored blatant evidence of culpability. It is ridiculous to the general public and risible to those who have security clearances for Clinton to claim she thought that “(c)” placed after paragraphs in her emails meant the material was in alphabetical order rather than meaning it was classified. If she thought (c) indicated alphabetical order, where were (a) and (b) on the documents? Clinton and her supporters touted her vast experience as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, positions requiring frequent use of classified information and presumably common sense. Yet neither experience nor common sense informed her decisions when handling classified materials.
Comey and the FBI never questioned Clinton about her public statements, which changed over time and were blatantly false. “I did not email classified information to anyone” morphed into “I did not email anything marked ‘classified,’” which morphed into the claim that (c) did not mean what it clearly meant. False and changing statements are presented to juries routinely by prosecutors as evidence of guilt.
Breaking DOJ protocols, violating the chain of command, and assuming an authority he never had, Comey usurped the role of the U.S. attorney general on July 5, 2016, when he announced that the case against Clinton was closed. He justified his actions saying that he no longer trusted Attorney General Lynch after her June 27, 2016, meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport. This meeting took place at the height of the so-called investigation—just days before Peter Strzok interviewed Clinton on July 2. Thanks to the efforts of Judicial Watch to secure documents through the Freedom of Information Act, we now know that Comey was already drafting a letter exonerating Clinton in May 2016—prior to interviewing more than a dozen major witnesses. We also know that the FBI’s reaction to the impropriety of the tarmac meeting was not disgust, but rather anger at the person who leaked the fact of the meeting. “We need to find that guy” and bring him before a supervisor, stated one (name redacted) FBI agent. Another argued that the source should be banned from working security details. Not one email expressed concern over the meeting. An FBI director who truly had his trust shaken would have questioned the members of Lynch’s FBI security detail for the Arizona trip about how the meeting came to be. Comey didn’t bother.
Comey described Clinton’s handling of classified information as “extremely careless,” a clumsy attempt to avoid the legal language of “gross negligence” for criminal mishandling of classified information—and we later learned that Peter Strzok, again, was responsible for editing this language in Comey’s statement. But practically speaking, the terms are synonymous. Any judge would instruct a jury to consider “gross negligence” as “extremely careless” conduct.

Comey claimed that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring the case against Clinton. I have spent many years investigating federal crimes, and I can tell you that a reasonable prosecutor would have utilized a grand jury, issued subpoenas and search warrants, and followed standard DOJ procedures for federal prosecutions. In short, Comey threw the case. He should have been fired long before he was.

In late spring 2016, just weeks prior to Comey’s July 5 press conference clearing Clinton of any crime, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe ordered FBI agents in New York to shut down their investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Their objections were overruled. Sources have told me that McCabe also shut down an additional Clinton investigation. This is the McCabe who, while he was overseeing the Clinton email investigation, had a wife running for the Virginia State Senate and receiving more than $460,000 in campaign contributions from a longtime Clinton loyalist, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe. Moreover, it was only after the news of Clinton’s private server became public in The New York Times that McAuliffe recruited McCabe’s wife to run for office. McCabe eventually recused himself from the Clinton probe, but that was one week before the 2016 election, after the decisions to clear Clinton and to pursue the Trump-Russia collusion investigation had already been made. So his recusal was meaningless.

In clearing legal impediments from Clinton’s path to the Democratic nomination, Comey and his senior staff thought they had helped Clinton clinch the presidency. Their actions put an end to a decades-long tradition of non-political federal law enforcement.

The Case of Trump-Russia Collusion
Rumors of collusion with Russia by Trump or the Trump campaign surfaced during the primaries in 2015, but gained in strength soon after Trump secured the Republican nomination in July 2016. Thanks to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, we now know that high-level FBI officials were involved in promoting these rumors. Among Horowitz’s discoveries were text messages between FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page that suggest an illegal plan to utilize law enforcement to frame Trump. The most revealing exchange we know of took place on August 15, 2016. Concerned about the outcome of the election, Strzok wrote:

I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in [Andrew McCabe’s] office—that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.

No amount of sugar coating or post hoc explanation of this and other texts can conceal the couple’s animus against Trump and support for Clinton. Strzok’s messages illustrate his commitment to Clinton’s victory and Trump’s defeat or, if Trump won, to an “insurance policy.”

The term “insurance policy” obviously refers to the Trump-Russia collusion investigation, which to this day remains a probe with no underlying crime. This is not the talk of professional investigators, but of corrupt agents who have created two standards of justice based on their political leanings. It looks like a reprise of the schemes undertaken during an earlier era, under FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, that led to the creation of the Church Committee—a committee on which I served, and which tried to reform the FBI to prevent it from meddling in domestic politics.

At the heart of the Russia collusion scheme is the FBI’s utilization of a document paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Called the Steele Dossier because it was written by former British MI6 officer Christopher Steele, this document contains unsubstantiated information designed to taint Trump and his presidency. While Clinton partisans point out that candidate Clinton never referred to the Steele Dossier in her speeches, the fact is that she did not have to—the FBI hierarchy was doing it for her! Indeed, FBI General Counsel James Baker was recently reassigned because of his having leaked information about the Steele Dossier to the magazine Mother Jones.

Not one claim concerning Trump in the Steele Dossier has ever been verified by the FBI, according to Andrew McCabe himself in recent testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. The only confirmed fact is unsurprising: former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page traveled to Moscow on his own dime and met with various Russians—all perfectly legal.

Comey and then-CIA Director John Brennan laundered the Steele Dossier through the U.S. intelligence community to give it an aura of credibility and get it to the press. It was also used by the FBI and senior DOJ officials to secure wiretap warrants from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Then its contents, via court-authorized FISA warrants, were used to justify the illegal unmasking of the identities of wiretapped Trump officials. The contents of these National Security Agency intercepts were put on spreadsheets and presented to members of President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC)—specifically Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes—and subsequently leaked to the press. According to former NSC staff, President Obama himself read the FISA intercepts of Trump campaign personnel. Unsurprisingly, there was no request for a leak investigation from either the FBI or the DOJ.

In sum, the FBI and DOJ employed unverified salacious allegations contained in a political opposition research document to obtain court-sanctioned wiretaps, and then leaked the contents of the wiretaps and the identities of political opponents. This was a complex criminal plot worthy of Jason Bourne.

The Pall Over the Special Counsel and the FBI
Layered over this debacle is a special counsel investigation unfettered by rules or law. Not surprisingly, James Comey triggered the special counsel’s appointment—and he did so by design. According to Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, having been fired on May 9, 2017, he leaked official documents to his friend, Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, with the specific intent that Richman would leak them to the press. Reportage on that leak is what led Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint Robert Mueller—a former FBI director and Comey’s good friend—as special counsel to investigate allegations of Trump-Russia collusion.

Mueller’s reputation has been damaged by a series of decisions that violate the ethical rules of appearances. For instance, he hired Democratic partisans as lawyers for the probe: Andrew Weissmann, who donated to Clinton and praised Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for disobeying Trump’s lawful Presidential Order regarding a travel ban for residents of certain nations that harbor terrorists; Jeannie Rhee, who donated to Clinton and represented Ben Rhodes in the email probe and the Clinton Foundation investigation; and Aaron Zebley, who represented Clinton IT staffer Justin Cooper in the email server probe.

Mueller also staged a pre-dawn raid with weapons drawn on the home of Paul Manafort, rousing Manafort and his wife from their bed—a tactic customarily reserved for terrorists and drug dealers. Manafort has subsequently been indicted for financial crimes that antedate his campaign work for Trump and that have nothing to do with Russia collusion.

Then there’s the fact that when Mueller removed Strzok from the investigation in July 2017, he didn’t tell anyone. The removal and its causes were uncovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Why was such vital information concealed from the public? It is not, as is often claimed now, that Strzok was a minor figure. All the major decisions regarding both the Clinton and the Trump-Russia collusion investigations had been made under Strzok.

Significantly, Strzok also led the interview of General Michael Flynn that ended in Flynn pleading guilty to making false statements to the FBI. It is important to recall that Flynn’s FBI interview was not conducted under the authority of the special counsel, but under that of Comey and McCabe. It took place during Inauguration week in January 2017. Flynn had met with the same agents the day before regarding security clearances. McCabe called Flynn and asked if agents could come to the White House. Flynn agreed, assuming it was about personnel. It was not.

Flynn had been overheard on a FISA wiretap talking to Russia’s Ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. There was nothing criminal or even unusual about the fact of such discussion. Flynn was on the Trump transition team and was a federal employee as the President-Elect’s national security advisor. It was his job to be talking to foreign leaders. Flynn was not charged with regard to anything said during his conversation with Kislyak. So why was the FBI interrogating Flynn about legal conduct? What more did the FBI need to know? I am told by sources that when Flynn’s indictment was announced, McCabe was on a video conference call—cheering!

Compare the FBI’s treatment of Flynn to its treatment of Paul Combetta, the technician who used a program called BleachBit to destroy thousands of emails on Hillary Clinton’s computer. This destruction of evidence took place after a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives issued letters directing that all emails be preserved and subpoenaing them. Combetta first lied to the FBI, claiming he did not recall deleting anything. After being rewarded with immunity, Combetta recalled destroying the emails—but he could not recall anyone directing him to do so.

The word in Washington is that Flynn pleaded guilty to take pressure off his son, who was also a subject of Mueller’s investigation. Always the soldier. But those who questioned Flynn that day did not cover themselves with law enforcement glory. Led by Strzok, they grilled Flynn about facts that they already knew and that they knew did not constitute a crime. They besmirched the reputation of federal law enforcement by their role in a scheme to destroy a duly elected president and his appointees.

A pall hangs over Mueller, and a pall hangs over the DOJ. But the darkest pall hangs over the FBI, America’s premier federal law enforcement agency, which since the demise of J. Edgar Hoover has been steadfast in steering clear of politics. Even during L. Patrick Gray’s brief tenure as acting director during Watergate, it was not the FBI but Gray personally who was implicated. The current scandal pervades the Bureau. It spans from Director Comey to Deputy Director McCabe to General Counsel Baker. It spread to counterintelligence via Peter Strzok. When line agents complained about the misconduct, McCabe retaliated by placing them under investigation for leaking information.

From the outset of this scandal, I have considered Comey a dirty cop. His unfailing commitment to himself above all else is of a pattern. Throughout his career, Comey has continually portrayed himself as Thomas Becket, fighting against institutional corruption—even where none exists. Stories abound of his routine retort to anyone who disagreed with him (not an unusual happening when lawyers gather) during his tenure as deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush. “Your moral compass is askew,” he would say. This self-righteousness led agents to refer to him as “The Cardinal.” Comey is no Thomas Becket—he is Henry II.

A great disservice has been done to the dedicated men and women of the FBI by Comey and his seventh floor henchmen. A grand jury probe is long overdue. Inspector General Horowitz is an honest man, but he cannot convene a grand jury. We need one now. We need our FBI back.

[Pavlov]

Hillsdale?

:lmao

Since when does the FBI convene grand juries?

I'm missing something here.

[djohn2oo8]

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-politicization-of-the-fbi/

The Politicization of the FBI

Over the past year, facts have emerged that suggest there was a plot by high-ranking FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials in the Obama administration, acting under color of law, to exonerate Hillary Clinton of federal crimes and then, if she lost the election, to frame Donald Trump and his campaign for colluding with Russia to steal the presidency. This conduct was not based on mere bias, as has been widely claimed, but rather on deeply felt animus toward Trump and his agenda.

In the course of this plot, FBI Director James Comey, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, Strzok’s paramour and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, FBI General Counsel James Baker, and DOJ senior official Bruce Ohr—perhaps among others—compromised federal law enforcement to such an extent that the American public is losing trust. A recent CBS News poll finds 48 percent of Americans believe that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia collusion probe is “politically motivated,” a stunning conclusion. And 63 percent of polled voters in a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll believe that the FBI withheld vital information from Congress about the Clinton and Russia collusion investigations.

I spent my early legal career as a federal prosecutor. I later supervised hundreds of prosecutors and prosecutions as a U.S. Attorney and as an Independent Counsel. I have never witnessed investigations so fraught with failure to fulfill the basic elements of a criminal probe as those conducted under James Comey. Not since former Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray deep-sixed evidence during Watergate has the head of the FBI been so discredited as Comey is now.

The Case of the Clinton Emails
The Hillary Clinton email scandal began in 2013 with the U.S. House of Representatives investigation into the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. It was during that investigation that accessing Secretary of State Clinton’s emails became an issue. But it wasn’t until The New York Times broke the story on March 2, 2015, that Clinton had a secret, personal server that things really took off.

Thousands of emails that the House at first requested, then subpoenaed, conveniently disappeared—remember those reports about BleachBit and the smashing of Clinton’s numerous phones with hammers? Clinton and her aides were, to say the least, not forthcoming. It was clearly time for the FBI and DOJ to act, using the legal tools at their disposal to secure the emails and other materials the House had subpoenaed. But that didn’t happen.

One tool at their disposal was the grand jury—the sine qua non of a criminal investigation. Grand juries are comprised of 16 to 23 citizens who hear a prosecutor’s case against an alleged criminal. The subject of the investigation is not present during the entire proceeding, which can last up to a year. A grand jury provides investigators with the authority to collect evidence by issuing subpoenas for documents and witnesses. FBI agents and prosecutors cannot themselves demand evidence. Only a grand jury can—or a court, in cases where a subpoena recipient refuses a grand jury’s command to provide documents or to testify.

Incredibly, FBI Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch refused to convene a grand jury during the Clinton investigation. Thus investigators had no authority to subpoena evidence or witnesses. Lacking leverage, Comey then injudiciously granted immunity to five Clinton aides in return for evidence that could have been obtained with a subpoena. Even when Clinton claimed 39 times during a July 2, 2016, interview—an interview led by disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok—that she could not recall certain facts because of a head injury, Comey refused the case agents’ request to subpoena her medical records.

Comey claims he negotiated the immunity deals because of his concern about time. Yet the investigation was opened in the summer of 2015, nearly a year before he cut these deals. Compare this to the DOJ’s handling of four-star Marine General James E. Cartwright, who pleaded guilty in October 2016 to a false statement about leaking classified information to The New York Times. In that case, the DOJ bragged about its use of subpoenas and search warrants.

Not only was there no grand jury, the FBI never issued a search warrant—something it does when there is concern a person will destroy evidence. Clinton deleted half her emails and then claimed, under penalty of perjury, that she had turned over to the government all emails that “were or potentially were” work-related. The FBI later found email chains classified as “secret” or “confidential” that she had not turned over. Still no search warrant was issued.

Comey’s dereliction did not stop at the failure to utilize essential prosecutorial tools. He violated several rules that prosecutors consider sacrosanct:

Comey allowed one lawyer to represent four material witnesses, an arrangement ripe for the four to coordinate testimony.
After needlessly giving immunity to two lawyers representing Clinton, Comey permitted both to sit in on her July 2, 2016, FBI interview—a patent conflict. He claimed he could not control who sat in on the “voluntary” interview. That’s nonsense. He could have convened a grand jury, subpoenaed Clinton, and compelled her to appear and be questioned without a lawyer or else plead the Fifth Amendment.
Comey authorized the destruction of laptop computers that belonged to Clinton’s aides and were under congressional subpoena.
Comey ignored blatant evidence of culpability. It is ridiculous to the general public and risible to those who have security clearances for Clinton to claim she thought that “(c)” placed after paragraphs in her emails meant the material was in alphabetical order rather than meaning it was classified. If she thought (c) indicated alphabetical order, where were (a) and (b) on the documents? Clinton and her supporters touted her vast experience as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, positions requiring frequent use of classified information and presumably common sense. Yet neither experience nor common sense informed her decisions when handling classified materials.
Comey and the FBI never questioned Clinton about her public statements, which changed over time and were blatantly false. “I did not email classified information to anyone” morphed into “I did not email anything marked ‘classified,’” which morphed into the claim that (c) did not mean what it clearly meant. False and changing statements are presented to juries routinely by prosecutors as evidence of guilt.
Breaking DOJ protocols, violating the chain of command, and assuming an authority he never had, Comey usurped the role of the U.S. attorney general on July 5, 2016, when he announced that the case against Clinton was closed. He justified his actions saying that he no longer trusted Attorney General Lynch after her June 27, 2016, meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport. This meeting took place at the height of the so-called investigation—just days before Peter Strzok interviewed Clinton on July 2. Thanks to the efforts of Judicial Watch to secure documents through the Freedom of Information Act, we now know that Comey was already drafting a letter exonerating Clinton in May 2016—prior to interviewing more than a dozen major witnesses. We also know that the FBI’s reaction to the impropriety of the tarmac meeting was not disgust, but rather anger at the person who leaked the fact of the meeting. “We need to find that guy” and bring him before a supervisor, stated one (name redacted) FBI agent. Another argued that the source should be banned from working security details. Not one email expressed concern over the meeting. An FBI director who truly had his trust shaken would have questioned the members of Lynch’s FBI security detail for the Arizona trip about how the meeting came to be. Comey didn’t bother.
Comey described Clinton’s handling of classified information as “extremely careless,” a clumsy attempt to avoid the legal language of “gross negligence” for criminal mishandling of classified information—and we later learned that Peter Strzok, again, was responsible for editing this language in Comey’s statement. But practically speaking, the terms are synonymous. Any judge would instruct a jury to consider “gross negligence” as “extremely careless” conduct.

Comey claimed that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring the case against Clinton. I have spent many years investigating federal crimes, and I can tell you that a reasonable prosecutor would have utilized a grand jury, issued subpoenas and search warrants, and followed standard DOJ procedures for federal prosecutions. In short, Comey threw the case. He should have been fired long before he was.

In late spring 2016, just weeks prior to Comey’s July 5 press conference clearing Clinton of any crime, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe ordered FBI agents in New York to shut down their investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Their objections were overruled. Sources have told me that McCabe also shut down an additional Clinton investigation. This is the McCabe who, while he was overseeing the Clinton email investigation, had a wife running for the Virginia State Senate and receiving more than $460,000 in campaign contributions from a longtime Clinton loyalist, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe. Moreover, it was only after the news of Clinton’s private server became public in The New York Times that McAuliffe recruited McCabe’s wife to run for office. McCabe eventually recused himself from the Clinton probe, but that was one week before the 2016 election, after the decisions to clear Clinton and to pursue the Trump-Russia collusion investigation had already been made. So his recusal was meaningless.

In clearing legal impediments from Clinton’s path to the Democratic nomination, Comey and his senior staff thought they had helped Clinton clinch the presidency. Their actions put an end to a decades-long tradition of non-political federal law enforcement.

The Case of Trump-Russia Collusion
Rumors of collusion with Russia by Trump or the Trump campaign surfaced during the primaries in 2015, but gained in strength soon after Trump secured the Republican nomination in July 2016. Thanks to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, we now know that high-level FBI officials were involved in promoting these rumors. Among Horowitz’s discoveries were text messages between FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page that suggest an illegal plan to utilize law enforcement to frame Trump. The most revealing exchange we know of took place on August 15, 2016. Concerned about the outcome of the election, Strzok wrote:

I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in [Andrew McCabe’s] office—that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.

No amount of sugar coating or post hoc explanation of this and other texts can conceal the couple’s animus against Trump and support for Clinton. Strzok’s messages illustrate his commitment to Clinton’s victory and Trump’s defeat or, if Trump won, to an “insurance policy.”

The term “insurance policy” obviously refers to the Trump-Russia collusion investigation, which to this day remains a probe with no underlying crime. This is not the talk of professional investigators, but of corrupt agents who have created two standards of justice based on their political leanings. It looks like a reprise of the schemes undertaken during an earlier era, under FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, that led to the creation of the Church Committee—a committee on which I served, and which tried to reform the FBI to prevent it from meddling in domestic politics.

At the heart of the Russia collusion scheme is the FBI’s utilization of a document paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Called the Steele Dossier because it was written by former British MI6 officer Christopher Steele, this document contains unsubstantiated information designed to taint Trump and his presidency. While Clinton partisans point out that candidate Clinton never referred to the Steele Dossier in her speeches, the fact is that she did not have to—the FBI hierarchy was doing it for her! Indeed, FBI General Counsel James Baker was recently reassigned because of his having leaked information about the Steele Dossier to the magazine Mother Jones.

Not one claim concerning Trump in the Steele Dossier has ever been verified by the FBI, according to Andrew McCabe himself in recent testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. The only confirmed fact is unsurprising: former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page traveled to Moscow on his own dime and met with various Russians—all perfectly legal.

Comey and then-CIA Director John Brennan laundered the Steele Dossier through the U.S. intelligence community to give it an aura of credibility and get it to the press. It was also used by the FBI and senior DOJ officials to secure wiretap warrants from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Then its contents, via court-authorized FISA warrants, were used to justify the illegal unmasking of the identities of wiretapped Trump officials. The contents of these National Security Agency intercepts were put on spreadsheets and presented to members of President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC)—specifically Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes—and subsequently leaked to the press. According to former NSC staff, President Obama himself read the FISA intercepts of Trump campaign personnel. Unsurprisingly, there was no request for a leak investigation from either the FBI or the DOJ.

In sum, the FBI and DOJ employed unverified salacious allegations contained in a political opposition research document to obtain court-sanctioned wiretaps, and then leaked the contents of the wiretaps and the identities of political opponents. This was a complex criminal plot worthy of Jason Bourne.

The Pall Over the Special Counsel and the FBI
Layered over this debacle is a special counsel investigation unfettered by rules or law. Not surprisingly, James Comey triggered the special counsel’s appointment—and he did so by design. According to Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, having been fired on May 9, 2017, he leaked official documents to his friend, Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, with the specific intent that Richman would leak them to the press. Reportage on that leak is what led Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint Robert Mueller—a former FBI director and Comey’s good friend—as special counsel to investigate allegations of Trump-Russia collusion.

Mueller’s reputation has been damaged by a series of decisions that violate the ethical rules of appearances. For instance, he hired Democratic partisans as lawyers for the probe: Andrew Weissmann, who donated to Clinton and praised Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for disobeying Trump’s lawful Presidential Order regarding a travel ban for residents of certain nations that harbor terrorists; Jeannie Rhee, who donated to Clinton and represented Ben Rhodes in the email probe and the Clinton Foundation investigation; and Aaron Zebley, who represented Clinton IT staffer Justin Cooper in the email server probe.

Mueller also staged a pre-dawn raid with weapons drawn on the home of Paul Manafort, rousing Manafort and his wife from their bed—a tactic customarily reserved for terrorists and drug dealers. Manafort has subsequently been indicted for financial crimes that antedate his campaign work for Trump and that have nothing to do with Russia collusion.

Then there’s the fact that when Mueller removed Strzok from the investigation in July 2017, he didn’t tell anyone. The removal and its causes were uncovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Why was such vital information concealed from the public? It is not, as is often claimed now, that Strzok was a minor figure. All the major decisions regarding both the Clinton and the Trump-Russia collusion investigations had been made under Strzok.

Significantly, Strzok also led the interview of General Michael Flynn that ended in Flynn pleading guilty to making false statements to the FBI. It is important to recall that Flynn’s FBI interview was not conducted under the authority of the special counsel, but under that of Comey and McCabe. It took place during Inauguration week in January 2017. Flynn had met with the same agents the day before regarding security clearances. McCabe called Flynn and asked if agents could come to the White House. Flynn agreed, assuming it was about personnel. It was not.

Flynn had been overheard on a FISA wiretap talking to Russia’s Ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. There was nothing criminal or even unusual about the fact of such discussion. Flynn was on the Trump transition team and was a federal employee as the President-Elect’s national security advisor. It was his job to be talking to foreign leaders. Flynn was not charged with regard to anything said during his conversation with Kislyak. So why was the FBI interrogating Flynn about legal conduct? What more did the FBI need to know? I am told by sources that when Flynn’s indictment was announced, McCabe was on a video conference call—cheering!

Compare the FBI’s treatment of Flynn to its treatment of Paul Combetta, the technician who used a program called BleachBit to destroy thousands of emails on Hillary Clinton’s computer. This destruction of evidence took place after a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives issued letters directing that all emails be preserved and subpoenaing them. Combetta first lied to the FBI, claiming he did not recall deleting anything. After being rewarded with immunity, Combetta recalled destroying the emails—but he could not recall anyone directing him to do so.

The word in Washington is that Flynn pleaded guilty to take pressure off his son, who was also a subject of Mueller’s investigation. Always the soldier. But those who questioned Flynn that day did not cover themselves with law enforcement glory. Led by Strzok, they grilled Flynn about facts that they already knew and that they knew did not constitute a crime. They besmirched the reputation of federal law enforcement by their role in a scheme to destroy a duly elected president and his appointees.

A pall hangs over Mueller, and a pall hangs over the DOJ. But the darkest pall hangs over the FBI, America’s premier federal law enforcement agency, which since the demise of J. Edgar Hoover has been steadfast in steering clear of politics. Even during L. Patrick Gray’s brief tenure as acting director during Watergate, it was not the FBI but Gray personally who was implicated. The current scandal pervades the Bureau. It spans from Director Comey to Deputy Director McCabe to General Counsel Baker. It spread to counterintelligence via Peter Strzok. When line agents complained about the misconduct, McCabe retaliated by placing them under investigation for leaking information.

From the outset of this scandal, I have considered Comey a dirty cop. His unfailing commitment to himself above all else is of a pattern. Throughout his career, Comey has continually portrayed himself as Thomas Becket, fighting against institutional corruption—even where none exists. Stories abound of his routine retort to anyone who disagreed with him (not an unusual happening when lawyers gather) during his tenure as deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush. “Your moral compass is askew,” he would say. This self-righteousness led agents to refer to him as “The Cardinal.” Comey is no Thomas Becket—he is Henry II.

A great disservice has been done to the dedicated men and women of the FBI by Comey and his seventh floor henchmen. A grand jury probe is long overdue. Inspector General Horowitz is an honest man, but he cannot convene a grand jury. We need one now. We need our FBI back.

794255968448020480

[djohn2oo8]

Hey TSA, why is Trump attacking Mueller if you said Mueller is "just doing his job"?

[Pavlov]

Hey TSA, why is Trump attacking Mueller if you said Mueller is "just doing his job"?NO NO NO MUELLER IS WORKING WITH TRUMP AND GOT FLYNN TO PLEAD GUILTY TO A FELONY TO GET TO SUSAN RICE WHICH WAS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE SHE ALREADY FLIPPED ON OBAMA FOR REASONS AND SMILED IN A PICTURE WITH FLYNN THAT ONE TIME.

[Reck]

:lmao Trump new strategy is stupid as shit.

975792497095004160

New lawyer already taking shots at the current FBI director. :lmao

[baseline bum]

794255968448020480

:lol

[djohn2oo8]

975807208167526400
Shit will only get weirder fellas.

[dabom]

Double boom. :lol

[Splits]

Hey TSA, why is Trump attacking Mueller if you said Mueller is "just doing his job"?

Just wait for the OIG report. That's the real boom.

[Chris]

975798108734066688

She had deep state and social media in her back pocket, and still lost! :lol

[Reck]

975798108734066688

She had deep state and social media in her back pocket, and still lost! :lol

Did you just wake up? Cambridge Analytica about to be blown out of existence. :lol

[boutons_deux]

What Hope Hicks Knows

The departure of the Trump whisperer has left the White House in even deeper chaos. Which surely pleases some outsiders angling to get back in.

https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/16/magazine/16-hope-hicks-lede.nocrop.w1600.h2147483647.jpg

Sharing her frustrations, Jared and Ivanka engaged her idea with caution; they asked her to give General John Kelly, the new chief of staff, a chance to change the West Wing for the better.

But as time went on, it became clear that the sickness was a feature, that

anyone who entered the building became a little sick themselves.

And no matter how dead any of the eccentrics or maniacs or divas appeared to be,

how far away from the president their status as fired or

resigned or never-hired-in-the-first-place should have logically rendered them,

nobody was ever truly gone.

The people who were problems on the campaign or on the inside continued to be problems.

When the president returned from the Capitol around noon, Hicks opened her office door, which clasps with a ring at its center, and walked about ten feet to her right, into the Oval Office. Before she could finish resigning, Trump interrupted her. He told her that he cared about her happiness, that he understood her decision, and he would help her do anything she wanted to do in her life. He said he hoped she would go make a lot of money. He also said he hoped that she would come back at some point.

Then the president added something else: “I’m sorry for everything you’ve been through.”

https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/what-hope-hicks-learned-in-washington.html

So will HH betray Trash and spill all she knows about the toxic sickness in Trash and how it infects everybody who work for, with him?

[Chris]

Did you just wake up? Cambridge Analytica about to be blown out of existence. :lol

Next time just toss me a link you hoser.

[Pavlov]

975798108734066688

She had deep state and social media in her back pocket, and still lost! :lol
2) The most batshit crazy Hillary baby-eating conspiracy theories to be amplified.

[Spurminator]

:lol There's nothing inherently suspicious about the head of an advertising platform meeting with a campaign director.

Facebook has meetings with hundreds of advertisers, most of the time they recommend spending more money on Facebook.

[Reck]

Next time just toss me a link you hoser. How's it feel to be a supporter of an illegitimate president?

[Chris]

How's it feel to be a supporter of an illegitimate president?

Why do you think Trump is illegitimate?

[Reck]

Why do you think Trump is illegitimate? Really? I have to break it down for you?

[Chris]

Really? I have to break it down for you?

No, you can tap out like everyone else does. I won't judge you.

[Pavlov]

No, you can tap out like everyone else does. I won't judge you.Have you watched any of the Channel 4 coverage of Cambridge Analytica, Chris?

Yes or no.

[Spurminator]

Have you watched any of the Channel 4 coverage of Cambridge Analytica, Chris?

Yes or no.

Too busy trying to get Mark Dice and Seb Gorka's attention on Twitter, tbh.

[djohn2oo8]

975843127390072833

[Reck]

975878364660748288
TSA So much for that FISA abuse thingy.

[djohn2oo8]

975878364660748288
TSA So much for that FISA abuse thingy.

Its going to be a bad few weeks for TSA.

[DarrinS]

Hunt for Orange October is taking forever.

[DarrinS]

The more interesting investigation is going largely unnoticed.

[Pavlov]

The more interesting investigation is going largely unnoticed.Oh, here's Darrin to tell us what we're missing!

Do tell, Darrin.

[djohn2oo8]

975907649073172482

[Chris]

CNN :lol

[djohn2oo8]

CNN :lol

A better source than citizen x.

[boutons_deux]

Trump Considers Reshuffling Legal Team as He Takes On Mueller More Aggressively

he openly discussed firing one of his lawyers,

another considered resigning and

a third — who pushed theories on television that Mr. Trump was framed by the F.B.I. — joined the roster.

Mr. Trump has weighed aloud in recent days to close associates whether to dismiss his lawyer Ty Cobb, who had pushed most strongly a strategy of cooperating fully with the special counsel investigation.

Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer, John Dowd, has contemplated leaving his post because he has concluded that he has no control over the behavior of the president

president’s concern that the investigation into possible ties between his associates and Russia’s election interference is bearing down on him more directly.

And the legal team’s collapse comes as his lawyers are confronting one of their most critical tasks: advising the president on whether to agree to sit for an interview with the special counsel’s office.

he hired Joseph E. diGenova, a longtime Washington lawyer who has appeared regularly on Fox News in recent months to

claim that the F.B.I. and the Justice Department had manufactured evidence against Mr. Trump to aid Hillary Clinton.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-mueller-russia-investigation.html

evidence from diGenova, or is he just pimping his career as celebrity lawyer?

[boutons_deux]

Of course not ...

FEC Unlikely To Launch NRA-Russia Probe

It will likely be months before the matter moves up through the appropriate channels and the controversy-averse panel of commissioners votes on whether to launch a formal investigation.

And they’re highly unlikely to vote to do so.

the panel, which currently includes two appointees from each party, would vote to open a full-blown investigation.

“It would take everybody to agree to do it, which is highly unlikely,”

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/fec-no-real-investigation-nra-russia-yet

[boutons_deux]

Hey, Trash, your so-called Presdency is an abortion already

Trump fumes Mueller probe is ‘going to choke the life out of’ his presidency

President Donald Trump is privately fuming and publicly lashing out over special counsel Robert Mueller and his sprawling probe of the president’s ties to Russia.

Republican lawmakers have bluntly told Trump to tone down his escalating criticism of Mueller, the former FBI director, and his investigation,

but GOP leaders have taken no action to protect the special counsel and instead are hoping to wait out the storm,

Trump was not consulting with top advisers, such as chief of staff John Kelly or White House counsel Donald McGahn, on the Russia probe

but was instead “watching television and calling friends,” :lol

“Multiple White House officials said Monday that they believe Trump is now acutely aware of the political — and even legal — consequences of taking action against Mueller,” the AP reported.

“For now, they predicted, Trump will snipe at Mueller from the outside.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/trump-fumes-mueller-probe-going-choke-life-presidency/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

If Trash fires Mueller, I bet the Repug Congress will do nothing but babble.

[boutons_deux]

Facebook demands to inspect Cambridge Analytica whistleblower’s phone and computer


https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Screen-Shot-2018-03-19-at-7.43.47-AM.png

Facebook is reportedly demanding to inspect the phone and computer of Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie.

Wylie seemed surprised by the request and asked Cadwalladr whether they wanted to

“look through my d*ck pics.”

Wylie himself then went on Twitter to clarify that he has been “proactively working with the UK authorities for months before this story came out.”

“Facebook is not the authority here,” he added.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/facebook-demands-inspect-cambridge-analytica-whistleblowers-phone-computer-report/

[djohn2oo8]

915389445146398720
Hmm Swing States? Zuckerberg better prepare his anus.

Lordy! Seems like he still needs to.

[TSA]

BREAKING: Russian-linked Facebook ads targeted Wisconsin and Michigan during last year's election https://t.co/0c3VG4t1Mq pic.twitter.com/bLNVkv24Ri
— CNN International (@cnni) October 4, 2017

Hmm Swing States? Zuckerberg better prepare his anus.


Lordy! Seems like he still needs to.

The Russian effort looks even less influential when one considers the tiny amount of Russian Facebook spending directed at key battleground states — $1,979 in Wisconsin, $823 in Michigan and $300 in Pennsylvania.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-russias-facebook-ad-campaign-wasnt-such-a-success/2017/11/03/b8efacca-bffa-11e7-8444-a0d4f04b89eb_story.html?utm_term=.5656164ec108

:rollin

[boutons_deux]

The Russian effort looks even less influential when one considers the tiny amount of Russian Facebook spending directed at key battleground states — $1,979 in Wisconsin, $823 in Michigan and $300 in Pennsylvania.


iow, Trash/CA/Kushner/Pootin got a huge bang (tiny hands, tiny dick, "fake news" hair) for the tiny buck (Internet traffic is mostly free, or paid for by Pootin, and "iron curtain" cyber warriors work for peanuts),

and it didn't take much bang in WI, MI, PA to eke out Trash's EC win

Donald Trump will be president thanks to 80,000 people in three states

The most important states, though, were Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Trump won those states by

0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points, respectively — and

by 10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes.

Those three wins gave him 46 electoral votes;

if Clinton had done one point better in each state, she'd have won the electoral vote, too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/donald-trump-will-be-president-thanks-to-80000-people-in-three-states/?utm_term=.b8910dd8d8f8 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/donald-trump-will-be-president-thanks-to-80000-people-in-three-states/?utm_term=.b8910dd8d8f8)

CA/Pootin doing micro-targeting in those three states based on FB, etc data was not just "data collection" by AMERICAN political parties. It was foreign interference, with either active or passive collusion from Trash and his mafiya.

Then there was Pootin's tool Assange leaking Dem emails for weeks, sucking up media attention.

Then Comey delivered the coup de grace to Hillary (you know, because FBI was politicized/rigged to elect Hillary :lol ) with his letter (about finding more emails)

to Nunes who, of course, leaked it,

while the FBI told no one that it was, had been investigating Trash and mafiya connections to Russia for years (because the FBI was politicized to defeat Trash :lol )

goddamn, TSA, Chris, Chucho, Darren are fucking stupid Trash fellators.

[Pavlov]

The funny part is thinking ads are the only use of social media.

[Chris]

976130425939746816

[Pavlov]

976130425939746816Looks like there was a lot to be concerned about tbh.

[Chris]

976180508030742528

[Pavlov]

976180508030742528So Gentry Breitbart's new conspiracy is that British secret agent Christopher Steele is actually Russian secret agent Christov Stalin?

:lmao

[boutons_deux]

Repug Senators are traitors trying to discredit, shame, accuse the FBI

But where is similar Repug Senate initiative tracking down Trash and his mafiya?

[boutons_deux]

Watch Cambridge Analytica Executives Say They Masterminded Trump's Election Win

A second documentary from Channel 4 News reveals Cambridge Analytica sharing the tactics it used to allegedly win the presidential election for Donald Trump.

“We did all the research,” Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix says, unaware that he’s being secretly filmed.

“All the data, all the analytics, all the targeting.

We ran all the digital campaign,

the television campaign, and

our data informed all the strategy.”

Yesterday, Channel 4 News’ exposed (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8xk9v3/watch-cambridge-analyticas-ceo-offer-to-entrap-political-opponents-with-sex-workers-video) Nix and two other executives, Chief Data Officer Alex Tayler (now acting CEO) and Managing Director Mark Turnbull,

claiming to have swayed political and non-political elections in countries like China, Brazil, Australia, and Kenya.

But new video evidence reveals how the cryptic company claims to have swayed America’s 2016 presidential election.

Cambridge Analytica allegedly boasted of winning the election for Trump, by

accessing the names and email addresses of 230 million Americans.

“For each, they could access thousands of layers of personal information,”

used to craft custom messages for influencing voters, the news organization says.

“You did your rallies in the right locations,

you moved more people out in those key swing states on election day.

That’s how he won the election.”

alleging that Cambridge Analytica acted as

“a conduit for sharing information between the Super PAC and the Trump campaign, and

that is illegal,”

Brendan Fischer, director of federal and FEC reform at the nonprofit,

Turnbull even claims that Cambridge Analytica created the “Defeat Crooked Hillary” slogan that permeated much of Trump’s campaign.

He proudly recalls the firm designing the two Os in “crooked” to resemble a pair of handcuffs, and

then seeding the artwork on the internet.

“Sometimes you can use proxy organisations who are already there. You feed them,”

“We just put information into the bloodstream to the internet and then watch it grow,

give it a little push every now and

again over time to watch it take shape.

And so this stuff infiltrates the online community and expands

but with no branding—so it’s unattributable, untrackable.”

Perhaps most damning is Nix’s description of his appearance before the House Intelligence Committee.

Republicans, he claimed, asked him three questions—”Five minutes, done,”

Nix said.

He then urged to the fixer to open an account with ProtonMail, an end-to-end encrypted email service, and set his messages to self-destruct.

he more or less called Trump a puppet of those responsible for organizing his campaign.

“The candidate never, is never involved.

He’s told what to do by the campaign team,”

“So the candidate is the puppet,” asks the fixer.

“Always,” Nix replies.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wj788n/watch-cambridge-analytica-executives-say-they-masterminded-trumps-election-win-video?utm_campaign=Motherboard+Premium+Newsletter+-+320&utm_content=Motherboard+Premium+Newsletter+-+320+CID_8c76de2f3a573636cd082f57c7b5c377&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Campaign+Monitor&utm_term=Read+more

[boutons_deux]

after the Stormy beginning, some good stuff on Facebook, Mueller

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=p_vTyApRF-w

[Chris]

Questions Still Surround Robert Mueller’s Boston Past


Mueller's involvement in one of the FBI's most embarrassing cases



President Donald Trump directed angry tweets at Special Counsel Robert Mueller over the weekend. The tweets were prompted by the Department of Justice’s decision to fire Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Friday as recommended by the bureau’s Office of Professional Responsibility took action on McCabe after the DOJ’s Inspector General handed over evidence that the former FBI agent lied under oath and leaked information to the media.

Trump’s Tweets on Mueller appeared to some Republicans and Democrats be a veiled threat to fire Mueller. Those lawmakers warned the president that it would be the ‘beginning of the end for his presidency’ if Trump fired the special counsel. They also criticized Trump’s attorney John Dowd for suggesting over the weekend that the Mueller probe should end. Ty Cobb, the president’s personal attorney, reassured lawmakers on Monday that the president does not plan to fire Mueller.

But Dowd is not alone.

McCabe’s firing should raise serious questions as to where Mueller’s investigation is going. Mueller’s past involvement in cases casts a very different light on the former FBI director than the one painted by his proponents and the media, said David Schoen, a civil rights and defense attorney. Schoen has been outspoken on the special counsel and criticized Mueller’s top attorney Andrew Weissmann’s involvement in the investigation, as reported.

“We all have the right – even the obligation – to demand fairness in the process and this process is not the least bit fair and the investigations lack integrity,” said Schoen. He noted that as a defense attorney, Dowd should question how the investigation against Trump and his campaign came to be and if it was based on false information in an unverified dossier paid for by political opponents then the investigation is moot, said Schoen.

The Trump Russia investigation appears to be based, at least in significant part, on unverified and circumstantial evidence, coordinated actions of political opponents and “it is irretrievably tainted from its inception and must end now,” Schoen said. The case was also established by partisan bureau officials who were bent on bringing charges against Trump, he added. Although some lawmakers have asked for a second special counsel to investigate the FBI and DOJ’s actions in investigating Trump, many still continue to support Mueller’s ongoing investigation, which began at the behest of those being accused of wrongdoing in the FBI.

Schoen is surprised that lawmakers have lauded Mueller as a stellar and well-respected former FBI director but have little knowledge about the former bureau director’s past from the criticism during his years in Boston, challenges with the 911 Commission findings when he was first appointed to the FBI and handling of the Anthrax case to name a few, he said.

Mueller In Boston


In Boston, Mueller was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office and then became the Acting U.S. Attorney from 1986 through 1987.
It was Mueller’s actions during that time that raised questions about his role in one of the FBI’s most controversial cases involving the FBI’s use of a confidential informant that led to the convictions of four innocent men, who were sentenced to death for murders they did not commit.
Local law enforcement officials, the media, and some colleagues criticized Mueller and the FBI for what they believed was the bureau’s role in covering up for the FBI’s longtime dealings with mobster and informant James “Whitey” Bulger.

Bulger was a kingpin and a confidential informant for the FBI from the 1970s in the bureau’s efforts to take down the Italian mafia in Boston. But Bulger’s relationship with his FBI handler Special Agent John Connolly became toxic. It was later discovered that Connolly went out of his way to protect Bulger and aided the crime boss against investigations being conducted by the Boston PD and the Massachusetts State Police. According to reports at the time, Connolly would inform Bulger of wiretaps and surveillance being conducted by law enforcement.

Journalist Kevin Cullen wrote extensively about the FBI’s involvement with Bulger and raised concerns about the old case in a 2011 article in Boston.com after Obama asked Congress to make an exception to allow Mueller to stay on two-extra years beyond the mandated 10 year limit as FBI director.

Cullen said in his story that Mueller who was first an assistant US attorney, “then as the acting US attorney in Boston” had written “letters to the parole and pardons board throughout the 1980s opposing clemency for the four men framed by FBI lies. Of course, Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset.”

In 2001, those four men, who were convicted in 1965 of Teddy Deegan’s murder were exonerated by the courts. It was discovered that the FBI withheld evidence from the court to protect their informant that would have cleared the men, according to reports. At the time, the bureau buried the truth to protect Vincent “Jimmy’’ Flemmi, their informant, who was the brother of Stevie Flemmi, a partner of Bulger.

Coleen Rowley, a former FBI special agent and former Minneapolis Division legal counsel of the FBI, wrote an Op-Ed in the Huffington Post last year No, Robert Mueller and James Comey Aren’t Heroes stated that when the truth about Bulger “was finally uncovered through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI operated) Bulger gang.”

But according to Cullen, Mueller never was asked by Congress, “what did you know about Whitey Bulger, and when did you know it?”

U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner in Boston said the bureau helped convict the four men of a crime they did not commit, and the three of them had been sentenced to die in the electric chair.

“This case goes beyond mistakes, beyond the unavoidable errors of a fallible system,” Gertner wrote in a 228-page decision, which called the FBI’s defense — that Massachusetts was to blame for an inadequate investigation — “absurd,” according to Cullen’s article.

Schoen noted for these reasons alone there should be concern about Mueller’s special counsel.

“As I have mentioned before, under Mueller’s watch in Boston, the second most corrupt relationship between an FBI agent (John Connolly, now in prison for murder-related charges) and his information (Whitey Bulger) unfolded,” said Schoen. “Mueller was neck deep in it and has never answered the questions that the media asked rhetorically, but that should have been asked by a grand jury of Congressional Committee. Even such dubious sources as the NY Times, Boston Globe, and Huffington Post have demanded answers. Many have suggested he should never have been FBI Director.”


“Central tenet of the criminal justice system..to challenge the integrity of the investigation”
-Attorney David Schoen



Over the weekend, Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Oversight Committee was one of those members.

“If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act like it,” Gowdy told “Fox News Sunday,” who added Mueller’s probe should continue.

Like Gowdy, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also stressed that there should be a second special counsel, telling this reporter, “the system is working, we should let it work. Firing Mueller would be a grave mistake.”

But Schoen disagrees with Gowdy and Graham saying, “it is a central tenet of the criminal justice system that one may always challenge the integrity of the investigation/prosecution and it is reckless for a member of Congress to suggest otherwise,” said Schoen.

Schoen and the former FBI official disagree with Graham. The former FBI official, who worked on counterintelligence cases, said if the foundation of the investigation isn’t based on credible solid evidence “then Mueller’s investigation is one in search of a crime and that is not what you want and that’s not how it should be done.”

https://saraacarter.com/questions-still-surround-robert-muellers-boston-past/

[Reck]

Chris, you scare?

[Chris]

Chris, you scare?

Sounds like you and your tribe are terrified of Trump firing Mueller.

[clambake]

Sounds like you and your tribe are terrified of Trump firing Mueller.

that would be great!

[Reck]

Sounds like you and your tribe are terrified of Trump firing Mueller.

Like Ty Cobb, I pray he does. :lol

Do you realize that we finally have republicans actually talking about impeaching Trump if he does? That gave me a semi woody.

976214185456603139

976216804048609281

And Chris, you know McCain is on that train too.

I'm giddy about that prospect.

[TSA]

Like Ty Cobb, I pray he does. :lol

Do you realize that we finally have republicans actually talking about impeaching Trump if he does? That gave me a semi woody.

976214185456603139

976216804048609281

And Chris, you know McCain is on that train too.

I'm giddy about that prospect.

Pavlov I found a circle jerk for you to not participate in.

[Chris]

Like Ty Cobb, I pray he does. :lol

Do you realize that we finally have republicans actually talking about impeaching Trump if he does? That gave me a semi woody.

976214185456603139

976216804048609281

And Chris, you know McCain is on that train too.

I'm giddy about that prospect.

lol @ getting excited about the opinion of never-Trumpers Graham and Flake

lol @ McCain, dude is about go to retirement happy land :lol

lol @ the prospect of an impeachment: it's never going to happen!

lol semi woody and giddy


You have been properly pre-conditioned to react to a hypothetical scenario concerning Trump. MSM loves your support.

[Chris]

976171252678356993

[Reck]

lol @ getting excited about the opinion of never-Trumpers Graham and Flake

lol @ McCain, dude is about go to retirement happy land :lol

lol @ the prospect of an impeachment: it's never going to happen!

lol semi woody and giddy


You have been properly pre-conditioned to react to a hypothetical scenario concerning Trump. MSM loves your support.

You asked if I was scared of Trump firing Mueller. I said, do it. :corn:

[Pavlov]

Pavlov I found a circle jerk for you to not participate in.Rent free.

It's just news, TSA.

You don't consider this newsworthy?

:lol

[TSA]

Rent free.

It's just news, TSA.

You don't consider this newsworthy?

:lol

Does it get you hard? Does it get you giddy?

[Chris]

You asked if I was scared of Trump firing Mueller. I said, do it. :corn:

If Trump fired Mueller nothing would happen. Just a bunch of huffing a puffing on the Left.

[CosmicCowboy]

Deleted.

[Reck]

If Trump fired Mueller nothing would happen. Just a bunch of huffing a puffing on the Left.

You're over confident.

We all know what happens to people who get over confident.

[Spurminator]

Does it get you hard? Does it get you giddy?

It's remarkably tone deaf for someone with your posting history to accuse anyone of being overly giddy about anything.

[Chris]

You're over confident.

Nope. Just well informed.


We all know what happens to people who get over confident.

They get semi woodies? :lol

[Reck]

Nope. Just well informed.



They get semi woodies? :lol

And then he said....I'm well informed.

:lol

[Spurminator]

Lots of boner talk from Team Trump today. Weird.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

all news to me except the psychedelics. i've never been one for anything but bud, alcohol(not these days), and psychedelics. never got into or really done anything else thank god.

my intelligence is so low... because faggylumps says so.

you think i don't know what machismo means.... why? lmao you're such a little fresa bitch.

again faggylumps, why the hatred? because you believe i am that chick and hold her ideals and lived her life? lmao! or because i'm not like you nor my brother and don't subscribe to an ideology that dismisses and blurs the line of my gender and creates girly men like you and he?

I don't hate you, dim. I do think stupid white trash such as yourself are the biggest problem in political reality but what I feel is actually more akin to pity and contempt. I also never said you did meth, dim.

And yes I think you don't know what machismo means because you tried the I know you are but what am I routine after trying that "you're scared," "you're a pussy," and assorted attempts at physical intimidation. Given that I know who you are that is extremely amusing. First in that you are hardly physically imposing and second that you go for that low class method of conflict resolution.

It is one thing to be poor. Dignity is independent of socioeconomic status. OTOH, you embody all the cliches of white trash.

Doubling down with the whole gender identity thing is delicious irony. You're a homophobe and transphobe and it's a pressing issue for you. That is all I get from that. It speaks to the stupidity issue I mentioned above.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is interesting looking back at Mensch tweets that were touted as from a looney bitch by DarrinS and the conspiratards to see that she was spot on.

[spurraider21]

It is interesting looking back at Mensch tweets that were touted as from a looney bitch by DarrinS (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2042) and the conspiratards to see that she was spot on.
you think bannon is getting the death penalty?

[djohn2oo8]

you think bannon is getting the death penalty?

She never said he was getting it. She did say it was being considered. I probably ran with it I don't even remember. Just look out for more Bannon CA news, and the fact that whatever deal he may have made with Mueller, the UK will be very interested in him..

[djohn2oo8]

Engaging in conducting a psyop, a military style weaponized cyber attack against your own country, to sow distrust and destabilize the government is not a small thing. For years Bannon has been doing this. More shoes droppin.

[Chris]

Engaging in conducting a psyop, a military style weaponized cyber attack against your own country, to sow distrust and destabilize the government is not a small thing. For years Bannon has been doing this. More shoes droppin.

*Risitas

[Chris]

And then he said....I'm well informed.

:lol

Just so you know Trump doesn't even have to fire Mueller. IG can recommend it and DOJ enforces.

tee hee

[Chris]

Here is a series of 12 questions that do not seem to trouble anyone, but the answers to these should expose why so many of the people today alleging scandals should themselves be considered scandalous.

1) Had Hillary Clinton won the election, would we now even know of a Fusion GPS dossier? Would assorted miscreants such as Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele, or Peter Strzok now be under a cloud of suspicion? Or would they instead have been quietly lionized by a President Clinton grateful for noble services in the shadows rendered during the campaign?

2) If Clinton had won, would we now know of any Russian-supplied smears against Donald Trump? Would a FISA judge now be complaining that he was misled in a warrant request? Would likely Attorney General Loretta Lynch be reassigning Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr for his consultations with Fusion GPS operatives? Or would Russian operatives alone be likely, at an opportune moment, to threaten to leak to the media that they had given salacious material to Clinton operatives to ensure her election, and thus they were to be owed for their supposed help in ensuring a Clinton victory? Would anyone be now listening to a losing candidate Donald Trump making wild charges that he had been smeared in the closing days of his campaign by leaks of a Clinton cabal that drew on Russian help?

3) Are any Russian related interests currently still donating millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation? Why is Bill Clinton not being asked to speak by various groups—including those with Russian-ties—for $500,000 and above per talk? Is he now less persuasive than he was between 2009 and 2015?

4) Why did Andrew McCabe believe that two Democratic political action funds, one controlled by Clinton “best friend” Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, donated a total of $675,288 to his wife’s campaign for a rather obscure state senate post? What percentage of Jill McCabe’s actual campaign budget did the $675,288 comprise? And why after her defeat would Andrew McCabe still not recuse himself from directing FBI inquiries into allegations of (likely next president and past generous benefactor) Hillary Clinton’s prior improper use of an email server while Secretary of State? Does quid pro quo refer really more often to simultaneous benefactions or rather sequential ones?

5) What is the qualification for lying or giving false information to FBI investigators, and did the information supplied to the FBI by Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin concerning their knowledge of the use of Hillary Clinton’s private server qualify? Did Christopher’s Steele’s false pledges not to leak any information shared with the FBI to news sources qualify—at least at the level by which the FBI charged Michael Flynn for allegedly lying to their own investigators? Did Andrew McCabe qualify when he told his FBI superiors that he had not been a background source for news stories? What is the FBI’s own internal criminal bar of lying to or providing false information to Congress or government agencies or courts or leaking classified information? Did James Comey qualify when he testified that he had himself never given background interviews (a.k.a., anonymous leaks) to news organizations nor known other FBI agents to do so, or when he testified to Congress that he certainly did not draw up a memorandum exonerating Hillary Clinton from criminal indictment before he interviewed her or when he deliberately leaked several memoranda, possibly classified, taken from confidential conversations with the president?

6) What would have happened had the FISA court justices been apprised by the FBI and the Justice Department that the submitted Steele dossier was a) paid for by Hillary Clinton, b) impossible to verify by the FBI, and 3) the sole source for news stories that were being used in circular fashion to corroborate the dossier’s veracity?

7) Why did Bruce Ohr not disclose to his superiors that he had met with the compiler of the anti-Trump dossier, Christopher Steele, as well as Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, who had hired Steele? Why did not Ohr disclose on government-mandated ethics forms that his spouse, Nellie, had worked for Fusion GPS on the anti-Trump dossier during the election? What are the criminal and civil penalties for deliberately misleading auditors, if any? Why has Ohr not been put on notice by authorities that he violated such statutes and could face charges?

8) Why is Christopher Steele not under indictment and facing extradition as a foreign agent for a) interfering in a U.S. election, b) colluding with Russian interests to obtain information deemed damaging to a U.S. presidential candidate, c) lying to the FBI about his own disclosures of FBI sensitive material related to the dossier to news organizations? Did Steele’s collusion efforts and interference in a U.S. campaign differ much from, or exceed, the attempts of Russians currently indicted by Robert Mueller?

9) Why did Mueller, at the beginning of his special counsel investigation—to ensure against even the appearance of partisanship or conflicts of interests—not insist of potential hires: a) that they had not donated to either 2016 political campaign, b) that they had not represented past clients who were involved either with the Clinton or Trump organizations or were even tangentially involved with ongoing scandals concerning either Clinton or Trump, c) that were not from his own law firm WilmerHale, which was currently representing, or had in the past, individuals who may well be caught up in future special counsel investigations?

10) Why did Samantha Power, in a non-intelligence affiliated job as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, request classified surveillance of American citizens and others to be sent to her office with the names unmasked, eventually at a rate, on average, of one request per day in 2016? And why and how could she testify that some of those daily requests for unmaskings made in her name were not in fact made by her? If not, then by whom and for what purpose and why with such frequency? And why did the requests continue after the 2016 election and during the transition?

11) Why were the major figures—James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, and Peter Strzok—who have in the past investigated, or are currently investigating or overseeing investigations of collusion charges against Donald Trump, all previously involved with investigations of Hillary Clinton? Have they exercised the same methods in the Trump collusion investigation that they used in the past in which Clinton was exonerated?

12) Which members of the Obama administration were aware of, or gave orders to, members of the Obama Justice Department and the FBI to use the Steele dossier to obtain FISA court orders to surveille American citizens? And who had access to transcripts of such surveillance, and why were the names of particular American surveilled then unmasked and how were they later disclosed to the media?


https://amgreatness.com/2018/03/20/scandal-questions-never-asked-much-less-answered/

[TSA]

It is interesting looking back at Mensch tweets that were touted as from a looney bitch by DarrinS and the conspiratards to see that she was spot on.


865993952943624192

Fkk9DI-8el4

[TSA]

Engaging in conducting a psyop, a military style weaponized cyber attack against your own country, to sow distrust and destabilize the government is not a small thing. For years Bannon has been doing this. More shoes droppin.

You’ve got the worst case of Trump derangement syndrome I’ve ever seen. You’ve lost your mind.

[boutons_deux]

Trump Reportedly Ignored National Security Advisers’ Warnings on Putin Call:

‘DO NOT CONGRATULATE’

During his Tuesday phone call (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-dishes-on-his-phone-chat-congratulating-putin-on-election-win-we-had-a-very-good-call/) with Russian President Vladimir Putin,

President Donald Trump congratulated his Putin for his recent election victory,

something he was proud to tell reporters after the fact


the president’s national security advisers were hoping to avoid this issue, but the president wouldn’t heed their warning.

According to the Washington Post, (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-national-security-advisers-warned-him-not-to-congratulate-putin-he-did-it-anyway/2018/03/20/22738ebc-2c68-11e8-8ad6-fbc50284fce8_story.html?utm_term=.88c711fed21d) those advisers presented him with briefing materials prior to the call that had

a section in ALL CAPS that read “DO NOT CONGRATULATE.”

https://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-reportedly-ignored-national-security-advisers-warnings-on-putin-call-do-not-congratulate/

:lol

[boutons_deux]

The case for indicting presidents, as made by Trump’s new lawyer

“The nation ... could conceivably benefit from the indictment of a president.”

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/R63QhFCvsJYMa-KP_EtSWsHGTFo=/0x0:710x401/1220x813/filters:focal(302x101:414x213):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/59094633/19_joseph_digenova.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.0.jpg

he wrote in a 1997 Wall Street Journal op-ed (http://on.wsj.com/2HPpvi2) that it would be good for the country if a president were not only investigated but actually indicted while in office.

“The nation, in fact, could conceivably benefit from the indictment of a president,” diGenova wrote.

“It would teach the valuable civics lesson that no one is above the law.”

most legal experts believe that Mueller wouldn’t indict President Trump even if he put together knock-down evidence that the president committed a crime.

This view, however, is controversial among legal scholars — with many arguing that the DOJ got it wrong (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/17/15654158/trump-prosecuted-constitution-impeachment-prosecutor) and that presidents aren’t immune from all prosecutions. DiGenova sides emphatically with the skeptics.

“Let us suppose that one day a president, tired of the constraints of security, secretly leaves the White House in a car and strikes and kills a pedestrian.

Suppose, further, the president was drunk at the time.

Does anyone argue that justice must await his impeachment and removal?”

diGenova writes in the Journal piece (http://on.wsj.com/2HPpvi2).

“The Founders created a presidency, not a monarchy.”

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/20/17117094/joseph-digenova-trump-lawyer-indict-president

[Spurminator]

976194563009335298

"The result is that we have an American President who is terrified of his counterpart in Moscow."

Savage.

[Chris]

lol buzzfeed

[Reck]

Just so you know Trump doesn't even have to fire Mueller. IG can recommend it and DOJ enforces.

tee hee

He cant be fired without cause, period.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you think bannon is getting the death penalty?

What I get from this post is your reading skills suck.

[boutons_deux]

Trump ignores his own party’s warnings — and attacks the Mueller probe on Twitter again

President Donald Trump has been warned by members of his own party (https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/trey-gowdy-blisters-trumps-attorney-making-look-guilty-innocent-client-act-like/) that he will look guilty if he keeps attacking special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.

But just as he reportedly ignored aides’ pleas to not congratulate Russian President Vladimir Putin on his election win (https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/trump-ignored-caps-warning-not-congratulate-putin-written-presidential-daily-briefing/),

Trump has ignored his fellow Republicans and has gone after the Mueller probe again on Twitter.



On Wednesday morning, Trump approvingly relayed a quote from Fox News legal analyst Alan Dershowitz that questioned the need for a special counsel to investigate his campaign’s potential collusion with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential election.

“Special Council (sic) is told to find crimes, wether (sic) crimes exist or not,” Trump wrote, quoting Dershowitz.

“I was opposed the the selection of Mueller to be Special Council, I still am opposed to it.

I think President Trump was right when he said there never should have been a Special Council appointed

because there was no probable cause for believing that there was any crime, collusion or otherwise, or obstruction of justice!”

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/trump-ignores-partys-warnings-attacks-mueller-probe-twitter/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29 (https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/trump-ignores-partys-warnings-attacks-mueller-probe-twitter/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29)

Trash knows has no defense against Mueller's steamroller(s), except tweeting.

Actually, I think if he replaces JeBo with Pruitt who would fire Mueller, Congress would not dump the Trash, because Congressional Repugs fear Trash's cultish base.

[boutons_deux]

Colbert hilariously mocks Senate intel committee for avoiding question on Trump’s congratulatory call to Putin

“On Sunday, Vladimir Putin won an election rigged to prop up a dangerous strongman who is threatening Western democracy,” the host said.



“That required a strong response,” he continued, “so Donald Trump called him up say ‘atta boy.'”

“A lot of people weren’t happy,” Colbert noted, “that

Trump was giving the thumbs-up to a murderous dictator for winning a sham election.”

<see the vid> :lol

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/colbert-hilariously-mocks-senate-intel-committee-avoiding-question-trumps-congratulatory-call-putin/

[RandomGuy]

lol buzzfeed


Trump Reportedly Ignored National Security Advisers’ Warnings on Putin Call:

‘DO NOT CONGRATULATE’

During his Tuesday phone call (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-dishes-on-his-phone-chat-congratulating-putin-on-election-win-we-had-a-very-good-call/) with Russian President Vladimir Putin,

President Donald Trump congratulated his Putin for his recent election victory,

something he was proud to tell reporters after the fact


the president’s national security advisers were hoping to avoid this issue, but the president wouldn’t heed their warning.

According to the Washington Post, (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-national-security-advisers-warned-him-not-to-congratulate-putin-he-did-it-anyway/2018/03/20/22738ebc-2c68-11e8-8ad6-fbc50284fce8_story.html?utm_term=.88c711fed21d) those advisers presented him with briefing materials prior to the call that had

a section in ALL CAPS that read “DO NOT CONGRATULATE.”

https://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-reportedly-ignored-national-security-advisers-warnings-on-putin-call-do-not-congratulate/

:lol


:rollin

[RandomGuy]

Sounds like you and your tribe are terrified of Trump firing Mueller.

Terrified? Not in the slightest.

I would be rather happy were that to happen. That should worry you as a Trump bootlicker.

[RandomGuy]

The Russian effort looks even less influential when one considers the tiny amount of Russian Facebook spending directed at key battleground states — $1,979 in Wisconsin, $823 in Michigan and $300 in Pennsylvania.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-russias-facebook-ad-campaign-wasnt-such-a-success/2017/11/03/b8efacca-bffa-11e7-8444-a0d4f04b89eb_story.html?utm_term=.5656164ec108

:rollin

A political campaign sharing data with Russia as to where to target their ads in swing states would qualify as collusion yes?

Feel free to dodge that. TSA

[RandomGuy]

Too bad the FISA warrant was based on the dossier, dickhead.

Too bad it wasn't. :rollin

[RandomGuy]

Trump Reportedly Ignored National Security Advisers’ Warnings on Putin Call:

‘DO NOT CONGRATULATE’

During his Tuesday phone call (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-dishes-on-his-phone-chat-congratulating-putin-on-election-win-we-had-a-very-good-call/) with Russian President Vladimir Putin,

President Donald Trump congratulated his Putin for his recent election victory,

something he was proud to tell reporters after the fact


the president’s national security advisers were hoping to avoid this issue, but the president wouldn’t heed their warning.

According to the Washington Post, (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-national-security-advisers-warned-him-not-to-congratulate-putin-he-did-it-anyway/2018/03/20/22738ebc-2c68-11e8-8ad6-fbc50284fce8_story.html?utm_term=.88c711fed21d) those advisers presented him with briefing materials prior to the call that had

a section in ALL CAPS that read “DO NOT CONGRATULATE.”

https://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-reportedly-ignored-national-security-advisers-warnings-on-putin-call-do-not-congratulate/

:lol

I generally agree Russia's efforts had little overall effect, but it wasn't for a lack of trying. The question is, whether we should put up with active efforts of an intelligence agency of a foreign government to attack the very idea of democracy itself. Western liberal democracy is under threat from authoritarian regimes. That is important.

There is also the matter that the sitting president appears to be actively compromised by that same government.

But then, predicting what Trump will, or won't do is sort of a mugs game. He never fails to do the stupidest thing possible, just when you think he can't be dumber.

The thing about a good theory though, it that it both explains facts, and you can make testable predictions.

Fact 1:
Russia attempted to hack our electoral process through a multi-pronged attack.

Fact 2:
Donald "look how big my inauguration crowd was" Trump has done nothing but deny this even happened, and has gone so far as to take the extraordinary effort to delegitimize his own intelligence services when they something did happen. He has shown no willingness whatsoever to hold Russia to account for anything.

Fact 3:
Donald Trump has a pattern of criticizing anyone, and everyone at the drop of a hat. Allies, enemies, courts, free press, nothing has escaped his remarks and twitter feed, except for ONE/(two) thing(s), and that is Russia/Putin

Fact 4:
Russian efforts appeared designed to support Trump

Fact 5:
Trump directly called on Russia publicly to support his efforts to get elected.

Fact 6:
Donald Trump has gone out of his way to meet and talk with Putin privately in person, with no American witnesses. This is the only leader with which he has acted in this manner.

Fact 7:
Donald Trump, when forced to sign a bipartisan sanctions bill passed with a veto-proof majority of both houses of Congress, issued a signing statement saying most of it was unconstitutional, and that his administration would enforce it as little as possible.


Fact 8:
when Russia retaliated against sanctions by forcing the US embassy to cut staff, Trump thanked Putin for the action, making him look weak, something he has said one should never do, and is inconsistent with his past behavior in any other regard.

Fact 9:
Shortly after State Department appoves some material arms sales to Ukraine and Tillerson directly calls out Russia for using nerve gas in Britain, he is fired.

Theory:
Donald Trump has been compromised in some way. Either he directly owes them money, or they have evidence of some kind of him breaking the law or doing something he does not want others to know about.

This theory explains those facts, and is fully consistent with observed reality.

Prediction:
Donald Trump will take no action personally, nor will he criticize Russia or Putin in any way in regards to the Russian attack on our elections. He may allow his underlings to do some minor, inconsequential stuff, and if forced to do anything by Congress will drag his feet, if not outright attempt to veto any sanctions.


The way to falsify the theory:
1) Trump criticizes Putin/Russia (good)
2) Trump orders/takes action that materially harms Russian interests (definitive)

Bullshit conspiracy theories fail very often because either: they cannot be falsified, or they directly conflict with observed reality. This theory can be falsified, and does not conflict with what we know as fact.

Donald Trump is unpredictable except for Russia.

[Spurtacular]

Too bad it wasn't. :rollin

SMH. Full retard.

[TSA]

A political campaign sharing data with Russia as to where to target their ads in swing states would qualify as collusion yes?

Feel free to dodge that. TSA

Sure.

[TSA]

Too bad it wasn't. :rollin

McCabe testified there would be no FISA warrant without the dossier. Grassley/Graham said the application relied primarily on the dossier. Please explain how the FISA warrant wasn't based on the dossier.

[RandomGuy]

Sure.

Tell me again who founded Cambridge Analytica?

[RandomGuy]

McCabe testified there would be no FISA warrant without the dossier. Grassley/Graham said the application relied primarily on the dossier. Please explain how the FISA warrant wasn't based on the dossier.




In another example, the CEO reportedly said the firm will “send some girls,” specifically Ukranian women, to a candidate’s house to seduce the individual, an act that Nix said “works very well.”

“I’m just giving you examples of what can be done and what, what has been done,” he told the reporter.

Other methods involved making the public believe inaccurate facts about a certain candidate.

“I mean, it sounds a dreadful thing to say, but these are things that don’t necessarily need to be true, as long as they’re believed,” he said.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cambridge-analytica-execs-bragged-using-192148156.html

These people are manipulating you, and bragging about how they have been doing so.

At some point, you may end up like the ex-neo-Nazi trying to get others out of that cult. I truly hope so. You seem intelligent enough for some self-reflection.

[TSA]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cambridge-analytica-execs-bragged-using-192148156.html

These people are manipulating you, and bragging about how they have been doing so.

At some point, you may end up like the ex-neo-Nazi trying to get others out of that cult. I truly hope so. You seem intelligent enough for some self-reflection.Dodge #1

McCabe testified there would be no FISA warrant without the dossier. Grassley/Graham said the application relied primarily on the dossier. Please explain how the FISA warrant wasn't based on the dossier.

[TSA]

Tell me again who founded Cambridge Analytica?

Where's your proof that the Trump campaign was sharing data with Russia as to where to target their ads in swing states?

[Blake]

Dodge #1

McCabe testified there would be no FISA warrant without the dossier. Grassley/Graham said the application relied primarily on the dossier. Please explain how the FISA warrant wasn't based on the dossier.

Tsa with the disingenuous prove-a-negative demands.

There were other things in the warrant application besides the dossier

[Blake]

Where's your proof that the Trump campaign was sharing data with Russia as to where to target their ads in swing states?

Goal post shift of the day

[boutons_deux]

Fox/Repugs/TSA and other assholes assume, and imply everywhere, that the Steele dossier is not a legit source of info for the FBI.

FBI gets leads from all types of sources.

Steele dossier is a legit source of info, incriminating info,

... even if Repugs and Dems paid for what is nothing but standard political oppo research.

[TSA]

Tsa with the disingenuous prove-a-negative demands.

There were other things in the warrant application besides the dossier

McCabe testified there would be no FISA warrant without the dossier. Grassley/Graham said the application relied primarily on the dossier. Are you seriously trying to argue the FISA warrant was not based on the dossier?

[RandomGuy]

Dodge #1

McCabe testified there would be no FISA warrant without the dossier. Grassley/Graham said the application relied primarily on the dossier. Please explain how the FISA warrant wasn't based on the dossier.

There is a difference between dodging, and not giving a shit about your latest attempt to create a red herring to distract from the fact the President of the United states is acting like Putin's cockholster.

Why should I care about your attempts at obfuscation and red herrings? You will not get an answer until you tell me why this is more important to you than Trump's conflicts of interest and Trumps gross incompetence.

Quid, pro quo.

[TSA]

Fox/Repugs/TSA and other assholes assume, and imply everywhere, that the Steele dossier is not a legit source of info for the FBI.

FBI gets leads from all types of sources.

Steele dossier is a legit source of info, incriminating info,

... even if Repugs and Dems paid for what is nothing but standard political oppo research.


:rollin

[TSA]

There is a difference between dodging, and not giving a shit about your latest attempt to create a red herring to distract from the fact the President of the United states is acting like Putin's cockholster.

Why should I care about your attempts at obfuscation and red herrings? You will not get an answer until you tell me why this is more important to you than Trump's conflicts of interest and Trumps gross incompetence.

Quid, pro quo.

YOU claimed the FISA warrant was not based on the dossier. I can see why you don't want to discuss that ridiculous claim :lol

[Pavlov]

TSA chooses to be ignorant of critical information that would cause his little conspiracy world to collapse.

[spurraider21]

McCabe testified there would be no FISA warrant without the dossier. Grassley/Graham said the application relied primarily on the dossier. Are you seriously trying to argue the FISA warrant was not based on the dossier?
que?

[Reck]

McCabe testified there would be no FISA warrant without the dossier. Grassley/Graham said the application relied primarily on the dossier. Are you seriously trying to argue the FISA warrant was not based on the dossier?

The FBI said they already had the information that the dossier contained. Except for the pee thing.

The dossier was nothing more of a confirmation of what they already knew. The dossier was not what started it no matter what you say.


Trump is wrong to say the investigation into his campaign’s ties with Russia started with a dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Republican lawmakers have confirmed that George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign adviser who was told during the election that high-ranking Russian government officials in Moscow possessed "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails," triggered the probe

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/mar/19/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweetstorm-mueller-rus/

[Pavlov]

que?I never saw an actual quote myself. Maybe TSA can help us out.

[spurraider21]

I never saw an actual quote myself. Maybe TSA can help us out.
the nunes memo says so. mccabe himself has said his quote was mischaracterized


"We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information," McCabe told CNN as part of a wide-ranging interview. "Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not."

[RandomGuy]

Where's your proof that the Trump campaign was sharing data with Russia as to where to target their ads in swing states?

Just another coincidence to you I'm sure. Russian disinformation campaigns get suddenly a lot more sophisticated about the time Bannon's company gets involved with the campaign.

Next thing you will be telling me that Tillerson being fired the day after calling Russia out was a coincidence.

So many coincidences. Seth Rich being mysteriously killed after his computer was involved in leaks, about the same time Steele said that the Russians were worried about getting caught for their meddling. A Russian intelligence general, just happened to fall on a bullet after the dossier with detailed insider knowledge came out.

The candidate, a total computer illiterate, just happened to call on Russia publicly for help hacking his opponents emails.

It piles up dude.

For the actual proof, that would take a subpoena. I wonder if there is anyone with subpoena powers who is looking into this...?

[Pavlov]

the nunes memo says so. mccabe himself has said his quote was mischaracterized:lol Nunes

[Blake]

Guess tsa's next post?

I'll go with some variation of "prove they couldn't get the warrant without the dossier"

[RandomGuy]

YOU claimed the FISA warrant was not based on the dossier. I can see why you don't want to discuss that ridiculous claim :lol

Quite the contrary, I would be happy to discuss my answer, but I don't really have any patience where you are concerned these days.

You will not get an answer until you tell me why this is more important to you than Trump's conflicts of interest and Trumps gross incompetence, because I am genuinely curious as to what motivates someone to work so hard at being dishonest, and overlook so much corruption.

Quid, pro quo.

[TSA]

Just another coincidence to you I'm sure. Russian disinformation campaigns get suddenly a lot more sophisticated about the time Bannon's company gets involved with the campaign.

Next thing you will be telling me that Tillerson being fired the day after calling Russia out was a coincidence.

So many coincidences. Seth Rich being mysteriously killed after his computer was involved in leaks, about the same time Steele said that the Russians were worried about getting caught for their meddling. A Russian intelligence general, just happened to fall on a bullet after the dossier with detailed insider knowledge came out.

The candidate, a total computer illiterate, just happened to call on Russia publicly for help hacking his opponents emails.

It piles up dude.

For the actual proof, that would take a subpoena. I wonder if there is anyone with subpoena powers who is looking into this...?

speaking of Seth Rich check out this crazy shit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/lobbyist-says-he-was-nearly-killed-by-man-he-hired-to-investigate-seth-richs-death/2018/03/19/a4261e48-2baa-11e8-8688-e053ba58f1e4_story.html?outputType=comment&utm_term=.ee1f75d64f85

[spurraider21]

speaking of Seth Rich check out this crazy shit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/lobbyist-says-he-was-nearly-killed-by-man-he-hired-to-investigate-seth-richs-death/2018/03/19/a4261e48-2baa-11e8-8688-e053ba58f1e4_story.html?outputType=comment&utm_term=.ee1f75d64f85
CIA mouthpiece WaPo good now

[TSA]

the nunes memo says so. mccabe himself has said his quote was mischaracterized

[/FONT][/COLOR]

yes let's take the word of the guy who just got fired for lying under oath :rollin

[RandomGuy]

speaking of Seth Rich check out this crazy shit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/lobbyist-says-he-was-nearly-killed-by-man-he-hired-to-investigate-seth-richs-death/2018/03/19/a4261e48-2baa-11e8-8688-e053ba58f1e4_story.html?outputType=comment&utm_term=.ee1f75d64f85

The problem with excluding Russian involvement is that you can't.

Rich being murdered as a loose end by the Russians is very consistent with known Russian sanctioning methods.

Get them drunk, lower their guard, kill them. Very very classic KGB.

Not conclusive in any universe, but it is a datapoint, in the larger picture.

[RandomGuy]

yes let's take the word of the guy who just got fired for lying under oath :rollin


I am being singled out and treated this way because of the role I played, the actions I took, and the events I witnessed in the aftermath of the firing of James Comey. The release of this report was accelerated only after my testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed that I would corroborate former Director Comey's accounts of his discussions with the President.

He wasn't fired for lying under oath, dipshit.

[spurraider21]

yes let's take the word of the guy who just got fired for lying under oath :rollin
swalwell from the intelligence committee also said mccabe's quote was a mischaracterization. how come they haven't released the transcript of what he said behind closed doors?

they dont even give his quote, they just paraphrase it.

[RandomGuy]

yes let's take the word of the guy who just got fired for lying under oath :rollin

As it turns out, that may have been an understatement. Human rights lawyer Scott Horton, whose work in the region goes back to defending Andrei Sakharov and other Soviet dissidents, has gone through a series of studies by the Financial Times to show how funds from Russian crime lords bailed Trump out after yet anther bankruptcy. The conclusions are stark.


Among the powerful facts that DNI missed were a series of very deep studies published in the [Financial Times] that examined the structure and history of several major Trump real estate projects from the last decade—the period after his seventh bankruptcy and the cancellation of all his bank lines of credit. ...

The money to build these projects flowed almost entirely from Russian sources. In other words, after his business crashed, Trump was floated and made to appear to operate a successful business enterprise through the infusion of hundreds in millions of cash from dark Russian sources.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1vHUNPXUAEKZWP.jpg

Donald Trump was bailed out of bankruptcy by Russia crime bosses
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/9/1618540/-Was-Donald-Trump-bailed-out-of-bankruptcy-by-Russia-crime-bosses

[Blake]

yes let's take the word of the guy who just got fired for lying under oath :rollin

Wut? :lol

[Reck]

yes let's take the word of the guy who just got fired for lying under oath :rollin

TSA, Why do you make up so much stuff that's easily checked off with a google search?

You're the king of goalpost moving.

[Blake]

TSA, Why do you make up so much stuff that's easily checked off with a google search?



Lol

[RandomGuy]

Dirty money: Trump and the Kazakh connection
FT probe finds evidence a Trump venture has links to alleged laundering network


https://www.ft.com/content/33285dfa-9231-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923


Ever since a series of bankruptcies left banks unwilling to lend to him, Donald Trump has been on the lookout for partners willing to fund the buildings that bear his name.

Over the years the US presidential candidate has assembled an eclectic collection of backers and collaborators. Some had chequered pasts, with links to organised crime or fraud schemes. But perhaps the biggest risk for Mr Trump’s complex, often opaque, business empire was that it might be used for a purpose US officials fear is rife in the country’s real estate sector: laundering dirty money.

A Financial Times investigation has found evidence that one Trump venture has multiple ties to an alleged international money laundering network. Title deeds, bank records and correspondence show that a Kazakh family accused of laundering hundreds of millions of stolen dollars bought luxury apartments in a Manhattan tower part-owned by Mr Trump and embarked on major business ventures with one of the tycoon’s partners.

This is how your shitty candidate, became a shitty President. On the back of a money laundering operation.

[Pavlov]

speaking of Seth Rich check out this crazy shit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/lobbyist-says-he-was-nearly-killed-by-man-he-hired-to-investigate-seth-richs-death/2018/03/19/a4261e48-2baa-11e8-8688-e053ba58f1e4_story.html?outputType=comment&utm_term=.ee1f75d64f85Certainly the conspiracy theorists are a bunch of stable geniuses.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_480w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2018/03/20/Local/Images/lobbyist0320_223.JPG?uuid=2iycCCuyEeiNyTtR4Ci4RQ

[TSA]

He wasn't fired for lying under oath, dipshit.Jeff Sessions statement:

After an extensive and fair investigation and according to Department of Justice procedure, the Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) provided its report on allegations of misconduct by Andrew McCabe to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).

The FBI’s OPR then reviewed the report and underlying documents and issued a disciplinary proposal recommending the dismissal of Mr. McCabe. Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor — including under oath — on multiple occasions.

The FBI expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and accountability. As the OPR proposal stated, “all FBI employees know that lacking candor under oath results in dismissal and that our integrity is our brand.”

Pursuant to Department Order 1202, and based on the report of the Inspector General, the findings of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, and the recommendation of the Department’s senior career official, I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately.

[TSA]

Wut? :lol

Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor — including under oath — on multiple occasions.

[TSA]

TSA, Why do you make up so much stuff that's easily checked off with a google search?

You're the king of goalpost moving.

Reck, why are you so bad at doing a google search?

Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor — including under oath — on multiple occasions.

[Spurminator]

yes let's take the word of the guy who just got fired for lying under oath :rollin

Remember that time you took the word of that same guy?


McCabe testified there would be no FISA warrant without the dossier.

You are so transparently intellectually dishonest it's not even fun anymore.

[Blake]

Jeff Sessions statement:

After an extensive and fair investigation and according to Department of Justice procedure, the Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) provided its report on allegations of misconduct by Andrew McCabe to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).

The FBI’s OPR then reviewed the report and underlying documents and issued a disciplinary proposal recommending the dismissal of Mr. McCabe. Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor — including under oath — on multiple occasions.

The FBI expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and accountability. As the OPR proposal stated, “all FBI employees know that lacking candor under oath results in dismissal and that our integrity is our brand.”

Pursuant to Department Order 1202, and based on the report of the Inspector General, the findings of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, and the recommendation of the Department’s senior career official, I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately.

Why hasn't sessions pressed perjury charges?

[Pavlov]

yes let's take the word of the guy who just got fired for lying under oath :rollinYou're taking the word of Nunes, who couldn't even produce an actual quote?

[Pavlov]

Remember that time you took the word of that same guy?



You are so transparently intellectually dishonest it's not even fun anymore.:rollin

[TSA]

Why hasn't sessions pressed perjury charges?

We don't know if he has or has not. The OIG report release has been pushed back and that could be a sign there is a criminal investigation ongoing.

[Blake]

We don't know if he has or has not.

Fuck dude, then why are you victory dancing with that bolded quote from Sessions about lacking candor under oath?

[RandomGuy]

Jeff Sessions statement:

After an extensive and fair investigation and according to Department of Justice procedure, the Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) provided its report on allegations of misconduct by Andrew McCabe to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).

The FBI’s OPR then reviewed the report and underlying documents and issued a disciplinary proposal recommending the dismissal of Mr. McCabe. Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor — including under oath — on multiple occasions.

The FBI expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and accountability. As the OPR proposal stated, “all FBI employees know that lacking candor under oath results in dismissal and that our integrity is our brand.”

Pursuant to Department Order 1202, and based on the report of the Inspector General, the findings of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, and the recommendation of the Department’s senior career official, I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately.



I am being singled out and treated this way because of the role I played, the actions I took, and the events I witnessed in the aftermath of the firing of James Comey. The release of this report was accelerated only after my testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed that I would corroborate former Director Comey's accounts of his discussions with the President.

Sorry, we have evidence, i.e. the direct statement of the man fired contradicting your preferred narrative. Now we have to chose between believing the Trump administration, or the FBI director with two decades plus of public service.

[TSA]

Remember that time you took the word of that same guy?



You are so transparently intellectually dishonest it's not even fun anymore.

People don't lie to make themselves look bad.

[Blake]

yes let's take the word of the guy who just got fired for lying under oath :rollin

Yes let's do a victory lol even though we don't really know

[RandomGuy]

Jeff Sessions statement:




The trouble for Sessions is that he recently testified before Congress that he knew of no collusive Russian contacts with the campaign. In an October hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sessions had the following exchange with Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Graham asked: “Did you ever overhear a conversation between you and anybody on the campaign who talked about meeting with the Russians?”

Sessions responded: “I have not seen anything that would indicate a collusion with Russians to impact the campaign.”

In the same hearing, Sen. Al Franken pressed Sessions more specifically in this exchange: “You don’t believe that surrogates from the Trump campaign had communications with the Russians? Is that what you’re saying?” Sessions replied, “I did not — and I’m not aware of anyone else that did. And I don’t believe that it happened.”

Speaking of Sessions and lying under oath.

What did Jeff Sessions lie about again? :rollin

[TSA]

Sorry, we have evidence, i.e. the direct statement of the man fired contradicting your preferred narrative. Now we have to chose between believing the Trump administration, or the FBI director with two decades plus of public service.

You're so wrong :lol

We aren't taking the word of the Trump administration on McCabe lying under oath, we are taking the word of the OIG (Obama appointee) and the FBI OPR (Mueller appointee).

[djohn2oo8]

976518043852472321 TSA loves crooks

[Reck]

Reck, why are you so bad at doing a google search?

Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor — including under oath — on multiple occasions.

You are taking their word for it. The rest of us actually want to see the report where it says how and in what manner he did so.

[TSA]

You are taking their word for it. The rest of us actually want to see the report where it says how and in what manner he did so.

Why would I not take the word from offices headed by an Obama and Mueller appointee?

[RandomGuy]

You're so wrong :lol

We aren't taking the word of the Trump administration on McCabe lying under oath, we are taking the word of the OIG (Obama appointee) and the FBI OPR (Mueller appointee).

McCabe says he was singled out for investigation because of what he knew about Comey. The administration ultimately got to decide what do to about that investigation.

Pointing to the people who conducted it as if that changes WHY he was fired is yet another stupid fucking red herring, you obfuscating dipshit.

[TSA]

McCabe says he was singled out for investigation because of what he knew about Comey. The administration ultimately got to decide what do to about that investigation.

Pointing to the people who conducted it as if that changes WHY he was fired is yet another stupid fucking red herring, you obfuscating dipshit.

Would you expect the DOJ to ignore the recommendation of the OIG and FBI OPR?

[TSA]

McCabe says he was singled out for investigation because of what he knew about Comey. The administration ultimately got to decide what do to about that investigation.

Pointing to the people who conducted it as if that changes WHY he was fired is yet another stupid fucking red herring, you obfuscating dipshit.

The OIG investigation has been going on since Jan 2017...McCabe is just bitter and grasping for straws at this point.

[Chris]

TSA steamrolling nigs :lol not too hard imo these people are so misinformed /uninformed

[Reck]

Why would I not take the word from offices headed by an Obama and Mueller appointee?

Because there are conflicting reports. What the OIG report says is not what McCabe is saying.

For someone who likes transparency, you sure are giving them a pass on this. McCabe had his due process crushed. He had none. And what's worse, the general public is still in the dark about the whole deal.

If McCabe did violate some laws and rules, then he will pay and I will be right there with you in saying bring charges. But this thing has been one sided from the start. The Trump admin operates in the dark and that should worry everyone.

[spurraider21]

i dont doubt mccabe contributed to the leaks to the WSJ, and that there were valid grounds to fire him. there are legit questions that maybe they went out of their way to find cause to fire him. speculation at this point. disgruntled fired employee will always have complaints about firing

i do doubt the accuracy of nunes' paraphrase of mccabe's closed-door testimony which has been challenged by other people present in that hearing and mccabe himself. could have easily taken a quote from the tx, but opted not to, and have take no steps to making that tx public

[clambake]

tick tock

[DisAsTerBot]

TSA steamrolling nigs :lol not too hard imo these people are so misinformed /uninformed

Hey tsa you got the dumbest poster on this site rooting you on! That’s gotta count for something imo

[Spurminator]

People don't lie to make themselves look bad.

You're the expert.

[spurraider21]

People don't lie to make themselves look bad.
except when flynn intentionally lied to get himself a felony conviction

[Chris]

976420417090015232

[KenMcCoy]

.

[djohn2oo8]

976420417090015232

Did you notice the spelling errors? I guess not.

[boutons_deux]

Did you notice the spelling errors? I guess not.

When a Trash tweet is long, coherent, spelling and grammar OK, I'm sure he didn't write it, but had it ghost-written. We'll find out who later.

[RandomGuy]

[cheeto faced shitgibbon farting]

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Trump Reportedly Ignored National Security Advisers’ Warnings on Putin Call:

‘DO NOT CONGRATULATE’



WH staff, aka so-called "adults in the room", is pissed that one of them leaked this hilarious item.

[Chris]

Did you notice the spelling errors? I guess not.

Point them out for me. Chop-chop.

[djohn2oo8]

Trump on twitter sucking Putin's cock.

[djohn2oo8]

Point them out for me. Chop-chop.

It is Special Counsel. Not Special Council. lol

[Pavlov]

Point them out for me. Chop-chop.Holy shit -- you didn't see them? :lmao

[Chris]

It is Special Counsel. Not Special Council. lol

That's one error. You said "spelling errors" as in plural. Point them out for me. Chop-chop.

[Pavlov]

That's one error. You said "spelling errors" as in plural. Point them out for me. Chop-chop.You didn't even read the tweet you posted.

:lol Chris

[Chris]

You didn't even read the tweet you posted.

:lol Chris

Splitting hairs on counsel/council :lol

You people are sick.

[djohn2oo8]

Holy shit -- you didn't see them? :lmao

Apparently not.

[Reck]

That's one error. You said "spelling errors" as in plural. Point them out for me. Chop-chop.

He spelled it wrong 3 times. That's P for plural. :lol

[djohn2oo8]

Splitting hairs on counsel/council :lol

You people are sick.

Those words have two different meanings.

[Chris]

Splitting hairs on counsel/council :lol

You people are sick.

[Pavlov]

Those words have two different meanings.He's talking about the secret society.

[Reck]

Splitting hairs on counsel/council :lol

You people are sick.

White evangelicals blowing themselves and other people up. :lol Chris.

[Blake]

TSA steamrolling nigs :lol not too hard imo these people are so misinformed /uninformed

Chris fluffing anyone on team trump

[TSA]

Because there are conflicting reports. What the OIG report says is not what McCabe is saying.

For someone who likes transparency, you sure are giving them a pass on this. McCabe had his due process crushed. He had none. And what's worse, the general public is still in the dark about the whole deal.

If McCabe did violate some laws and rules, then he will pay and I will be right there with you in saying bring charges. But this thing has been one sided from the start. The Trump admin operates in the dark and that should worry everyone.

:lol one sided from the start

Democrats called for the OIG investigation and at that time McCabe's lawyer welcomed the investigation. The Trump administration is not operating the Obama appointed IG investigation.

[Reck]

:lol one sided from the start

Democrats called for the OIG investigation and at that time McCabe's lawyer welcomed the investigation. The Trump administration is not operating the Obama appointed IG investigation.

Where this IOG report then?

Everything is on the up and up so why was he fired without the report being available?

[TSA]

Where this IOG report then?

Everything is on the up and up so why was he fired without the report being available?

If there are ongoing criminal investigations relating to the OIG report it will not be released.

[spurraider21]

If there are ongoing criminal investigations relating to the OIG report it will not be released.
if the reason cited for his termination was false/misleading statements regarding the WSJ leaks, does that rule out the whole altered 302 theory?

that certainly would have been a slam dunk reason to terminate somebody

[TSA]

if the reason cited for his termination was false/misleading statements regarding the WSJ leaks, does that rule out the whole altered 302 theory?

that certainly would have been a slam dunk reason to terminate somebody

Doesn't rule out the altered 302 theory. That could still be part of an ongoing criminal investigation and if that is the case then waiting for the results of that investigation would of allowed him to collect his benefits on his 50th birthday. Fuck McCabe and his benefits.

[spurraider21]

Doesn't rule out the altered 302 theory. That could still be part of an ongoing criminal investigation and if that is the case then waiting for the results of that investigation would of allowed him to collect his benefits on his 50th birthday. Fuck McCabe and his benefits.
he's still getting his benefits... just not immediately

[FlAVaK]

976420417090015232

976542647413366785

[TSA]

he's still getting his benefits... just not immediately

No shit. I didn't mention his 50th birthday for nothing.

[djohn2oo8]

976550848686944256

[djohn2oo8]

976575525740335105

[djohn2oo8]

976552879220719617
Lordy!

[djohn2oo8]

976581997865979905

[djohn2oo8]

976584241193652227

[koriwhat]

I also never said you did meth, dim.

lmao who said you did think i was a methhead? let's all live in make believe world! you're the dim one in this tbh. always playing the victim and coming up with bs scenarios to play said victim.


And yes I think you don't know what machismo means...

of course i know what machismo means. when did i say i didn't? again with your make believe bs.


because you tried the I know you are but what am I routine after trying that "you're scared," "you're a pussy," and assorted attempts at physical intimidation.

out of context for sure. you being a scared pussy has nothing to do with your make believe scenario of me wanting to kick your ass. however, you are a pussy and that's why you hide behind a screen all the while playing make believe with your bs lies of the past. get over the past holmes; HS was 20 yrs ago loser!


Doubling down with the whole gender identity thing is delicious irony. You're a homophobe and transphobe and it's a pressing issue for you. That is all I get from that. It speaks to the stupidity issue I mentioned above.

funny seeing how i am about to go celebrate a bday, in 2 hrs, by eating dinner with a trans and a couple gay dude's but that's neither here nor there.

you really have no clue on any stance of mine tbh. you're a ball of assumptions and accusations only.


It is interesting looking back at Mensch tweets that were touted as from a looney bitch by DarrinS and the conspiratards to see that she was spot on.

she is a loony bitch and you're a retard. two peas in a pod tbh.

[boutons_deux]

976575525740335105

looks like Trash and Kushner could be using PDB classified info to win favor with wealthy foreigners and obtain loans for Trash/Kusher companies.

Damn, Mueller can hardly keep up with the corruption in the Trash WH and mafiya

[koriwhat]

looks like Trash and Kushner could be using PDB classified info to win favor with wealthy foreigners and obtain loans for Trash/Kusher companies.

Damn, Mueller can hardly keep up with the corruption in the Trash WH and mafiya

you should just slide into Kyle's DM's already butt boy.

[djohn2oo8]

976582405472563200

[koriwhat]

976582405472563200

is mueller gonna question obama and clinton on why they fired their acting fbi director upon WH take over and faster than speedy gonzales compared to trump doing so?

[djohn2oo8]

976583291615764481
Nader has been granted immunity.

[spurraider21]

is mueller gonna question obama and clinton on why they fired their acting fbi director upon WH take over and faster than speedy gonzales compared to trump doing so?
mueller was fbi director when obama took over

in fact, obama requested that he serve an additional 2 years after his 10 year term. so the opposite of firing him

[djohn2oo8]

976590562726998022

[Pavlov]

976532093135187968

http://big5kayakchallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/luxury-marching-band-memes-sad-trombone-sadtrombone-marching-band-memes.jpg

[Blake]

funny seeing how i am about to go celebrate a bday, in 2 hrs, by eating dinner with a trans and a couple gay dude's but that's neither here nor there.

Uh ok.

:perv:

[Blake]

you should just slide into Kyle's DM's already butt boy.

Do you call your gay and tranny friends butt boys too

[Pavlov]

Uh ok.

:perv:SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE PEOPLE ON WHOM I WISH DEATH DAILY

[koriwhat]

Do you call your gay and tranny friends butt boys too

Nah because they're not as gay as you butt boy. You're a pansy and that's the difference. Boohoo my feelings...

[boutons_deux]

:lol

Trump furious over leak of warning to not congratulate Putin

President Donald Trump was infuriated after it quickly leaked that he had been directly instructed by his national security advisers in briefing materials not to congratulate Russian President Vladimir Putin on his recent election victory during their call Tuesday morning, a source familiar with the President's thinking said.

Trump was fuming Tuesday night, asking his allies and outside advisers who they thought had leaked the information,

noting that only a small group of staffers have access to those materials and would have known what guidance was included for the Putin call, the source said.

According to the source, the incident resurfaces his long-held belief

there are individuals inside his administration -- especially in the national security realm -- who are actively working to undermine him.

White House chief of staff John Kelly also is furious that a confidential presidential briefing became public knowledge,

a White House official said, and intends to address the matter Wednesday as aides try to figure out who disclosed the warning.

"If this story is accurate, that means someone leaked the President's briefing papers. Leaking such information is a fireable offense and likely illegal,"

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/03/21/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-congratulations/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

Probably somebody who expects to resign or be fired anyway, doesn't give a shit about Trash's WH fiasco

[Blake]

SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE PEOPLE ON WHOM I WISH DEATH DAILY

Lol

[DarrinS]

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/379372-trump-is-right-the-special-counsel-should-never-have-been-appointed

[Pavlov]

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/379372-trump-is-right-the-special-counsel-should-never-have-been-appointedDo you share this opinion, Darrin?

Yes or no.

[Chris]

Mueller time for pedos :tu


976648207378759680

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lmao who said you did think i was a methhead? let's all live in make believe world! you're the dim one in this tbh. always playing the victim and coming up with bs scenarios to play said victim.



of course i know what machismo means. when did i say i didn't? again with your make believe bs.



out of context for sure. you being a scared pussy has nothing to do with your make believe scenario of me wanting to kick your ass. however, you are a pussy and that's why you hide behind a screen all the while playing make believe with your bs lies of the past. get over the past holmes; HS was 20 yrs ago loser!



funny seeing how i am about to go celebrate a bday, in 2 hrs, by eating dinner with a trans and a couple gay dude's but that's neither here nor there.

you really have no clue on any stance of mine tbh. you're a ball of assumptions and accusations only.



she is a loony bitch and you're a retard. two peas in a pod tbh.

:lol again with the "I have gay friends" line.

How about you show them all the hateful vitriol you spew here. If what you are saying is true then you are simply a backbiting hypocrite.

[RandomGuy]

We don't know if he has or has not. The OIG report release has been pushed back and that could be a sign there is a criminal investigation ongoing.

Speaking of criminal investigations:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1vHUNPXUAEKZWP.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Why Donald Trump will never escape Russia

The US president is being outplayed by special investigator Mueller’s chess moves

Familiarity lulls the mind.

It is thus easy to miss the enormity of what is unfolding. Mr Mueller is playing a game of chess.

Every move is made with his opponent’s king in mind.

Last Friday, he boosted his defence by nailing Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

Do not take Mr Mueller’s word for it.

HR McMaster, Mr Trump’s national security adviser, said Russia’s role was “now incontrovertible”.

That makes it far harder for the president to fire Mr Mueller —

something he has tried to do more than once.

I would bet Mr Trump now sees General McMaster as a sacrificial pawn.

Unlike the fake news operation, which was headed by a friend of Russian president Vladimir Putin, the hacking was almost certainly pulled off by the FSB and the GRU, Russia’s two main intelligence agencies.

They funnelled their material through WikiLeaks, the site run by the fugitive Julian Assange.

Roger Stone, Mr Trump’s first campaign manager, had a knack for guessing when WikiLeaks would dump its next cache.

Mr Trump would then forecast it from the hustings.

He cited WikiLeaks 164 times in the last four weeks of the general election.

The timing of the leaks was always helpful.

The largest dump took place 32 minutes after the release of the notorious Access Hollywood tapes.

https://www.ft.com/content/4c57a39e-1647-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44

[RandomGuy]

You're so wrong :lol

We aren't taking the word of the Trump administration on McCabe lying under oath, we are taking the word of the OIG (Obama appointee) and the FBI OPR (Mueller appointee).


Jefferson Butterbeans Sessions, you got some ‘splainin’ to do! Turns out you may have left out one or two pertinent details when you set to firin’ Andy McCabe 10 minutes before his pension would vest. ABC reports:


Nearly a year before Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired senior FBI official Andrew McCabe for what Sessions called a “lack of candor,” McCabe oversaw a federal criminal investigation into whether Sessions lacked candor when testifying before Congress about contacts with Russian operatives, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.


We beg your pardon? Jeff Sessions was already under FBI investigation for “accidentally” forgetting to tell the Senate about all those Russian contacts during his confirmation hearing prior to the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel? And the person who authorized the Department of Justice to investigate its own boss was none other than Andy McCabe?

THIS SOAP OPERA NEEDS MORE CHARACTERS.

Apparently, Sessions has already been questioned by Robert Mueller and cleared for his “lack of candor.” But ABC reports Sessions jus’ had no AH-dea that he was even under investigation.

One source told ABC News that Sessions was not aware of the investigation when he decided to fire McCabe last Friday less than 48 hours before McCabe, a former FBI deputy director, was due to retire from government and obtain a full pension, but an attorney representing Sessions declined to confirm that.

To which Yr Wonkette says, CUT THE SHIT! Sessions was “not aware” of an investigation that required him to answer questions from the Special Counsel two months ago? Did Ol’ Jeff think Robert Mueller was the Russian Ambassador and the whole chat just slipped his mind? Because the Attorney General seems sufficiently aware of this investigation to be bragging that they cleared him. So we’re rating this statement a solid Yeah, No Shit Your Lawyer Wouldn’t Confirm It.


Read more at https://wonkette.com/631545/did-jeff-sessions-just-plum-fergit-he-was-under-investigation-for-lies#ZX2JjWjsdKBm0GB3.99

Whoopsies. Kinda deflates your McCabe's firing reason theory, donnit? Jeff "I don't recall" Sessions is not credible enough to take at face value.

Obstruction.
of.
Justice.

[RandomGuy]

Nah because they're not as gay as you butt boy. You're a pansy and that's the difference. Boohoo my feelings...

Russian spies in America, then and now
The Economist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBMPe1y-q6E


Russia is accused of trying to influence the US election, which led to the Trump presidency. In a rare interview one of the Soviet Union’s highest-ranking KGB spies talks about the long-standing practice of subverting Western democracy.

[Reck]

976842189140525056

:lol Fake news
:lol WITCH HUNT

[RandomGuy]

976842189140525056

:lol Fake news
:lol WITCH HUNT

When you have a narcissist for a client.

I'm sure he is going to work for Hillary's defense. :rollin

[Blake]

976842189140525056

:lol Fake news
:lol WITCH HUNT

:lol

[dabom]

:lol

[djohn2oo8]

Lol oh and to top it off. Trump being a dumbass tweeting about his social media operation during the campaign.

[boutons_deux]

Dowd may be quitting because he probably objects to firing Mueller, and Trash is getting closer to firing Mueller.

[djohn2oo8]

Dowd may be quitting because he probably objects to firing Mueller, and Trash is getting closer to firing Mueller.

He's gotta fire Sessions first.

[RandomGuy]

Dowd may be quitting because he probably objects to firing Mueller, and Trash is getting closer to firing Mueller.

That's what I was thinking.

[RandomGuy]

He's gotta fire Sessions first.

Rosenstein, not Sessions. Remember Sessions is powerless to do anything about it, Rosenstein was the one who appointed Mueller.

Even then, since the investigation is incomplete, even IF you could go down the list to find a new Bork (google Saturday Night Massacre), Mueller would have to be replaced by a new person, to continue the investigation.

Firing Mueller does not mean the end of the investigation.

[TSA]

Read more at https://wonkette.com/631545/did-jeff-sessions-just-plum-fergit-he-was-under-investigation-for-lies#ZX2JjWjsdKBm0GB3.99

Whoopsies. Kinda deflates your McCabe's firing reason theory, donnit? Jeff "I don't recall" Sessions is not credible enough to take at face value.

Obstruction.
of.
Justice.

:rollin Reck tried this same ABC article yesterday and failed miserably.

"one source told ABC News that Sessions was not aware of the investigation" :lol

December 2017
FBI email: Sessions wasn't required to disclose foreign contacts for security clearance
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/10/politics/jeff-sessions-fbi-russian-contacts/index.html


You brag about caring about the rule of law here is your chance to prove you truly do. Should the DOJ ignored the recommendation of the OIG and the FBI OPR to terminate McCabe yes or no?

[boutons_deux]

He's gotta fire Sessions first.

yep, and Rosenstein.

rumor is environmental criminal Pruitt will replace JeBo

[florige]

Rosenstein, not Sessions. Remember Sessions is powerless to do anything about it, Rosenstein was the one who appointed Mueller.

Even then, since the investigation is incomplete, even IF you could go down the list to find a new Bork (google Saturday Night Massacre), Mueller would have to be replaced by a new person, to continue the investigation.

Firing Mueller does not mean the end of the investigation.


Trump is probably too dumb to realize that. He is probably of the mind set that you fire Mueller and everything goes back to normal.

[Reck]

:rollin Reck tried this same ABC article yesterday and failed miserably.

"one source told ABC News that Sessions was not aware of the investigation" :lol

December 2017
FBI email: Sessions wasn't required to disclose foreign contacts for security clearance
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/10/politics/jeff-sessions-fbi-russian-contacts/index.html


You brag about caring about the rule of law here is your chance to prove you truly do. Should the DOJ ignored the recommendation of the OIG and the FBI OPR to terminate McCabe yes or no?

Failed by whose standard? Yours, of course.

Which means I was right automatically.

[TSA]

Failed by whose standard? Yours, of course.

Which means I was right automatically.

This should be fun. What were you right about?

[Blake]

This should be fun. What were you right about?

Asks the dude who has littered failures, back pedals and goal post moves all over this thread.

[TSA]

John Brennan’s Thwarted Coup

As his plot to destroy Trump backfires, his squeals grow louder.

It was the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky who coined the phrase the “dustbin of history.” To his political opponents, he sputtered, “You are pitiful, isolated individuals! You are bankrupts. Your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on — into the dustbin of history!”

It is no coincidence that John Brennan, who supported the Soviet-controlled American Communist Party in the 1970s (he has acknowledged that he thought his vote for its presidential candidate Gus Hall threatened his prospects at the CIA; unfortunately, it didn’t), would borrow from Trotsky’s rhetoric in his fulminations against Donald Trump. His tweet last week, shortly after the firing of Andrew McCabe, reeked of Trotskyite revolutionary schlock: “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America… America will triumph over you.”

America will triumph over a president it elected? That’s the raw language of coup, and of course it is not the first time Brennan has indulged it. In 2017, he was calling for members of the executive branch to defy the chief executive. They should “refuse to carry out” his lawful directives if they don’t agree with them, he said.

Trump has said that the Russians are “laughing their asses off” over the turmoil caused by Obamagate. No doubt many of the laughs come at the sight of Brennan, a supporter of Soviet stooges like Gus Hall, conducting a de facto coup from the top of the CIA and then continuing it after his ouster. Who needs Gus Hall when John Brennan is around? This time the Russians don’t even have to pay for the anti-American activity.

Another hardcore leftist, Samantha Power, who spent the weeks after Trump’s victory rifling through intelligence picked up on his staff, found Brennan’s revolutionary tweet very inspiring. “Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan,” she wrote. Sounded pretty dark and grave. But not to worry, she tweeted later. She just meant that the former CIA director was going to smite Trump with the power of his “eloquent voice.”

Out of power, these aging radicals can’t help themselves. They had their shot to stop Trump, they failed, and now they are furious. The adolescent coup talk grows more feverish with each passing day. We have a former CIA director calling for the overthrow of a duly elected president, a former attorney general (Eric Holder) calling for a “knife fight,” a Senate minority leader speaking ominously about what the intelligence community might do to Trump (“they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer has said), and assorted former FBI and CIA officials cheering for a coup, such as CNN’s Phil Mudd who says, “You’ve been around for 13 months. We’ve been around since 1908. I know how this game is going to be played. We’re going to win.”

In all this unhinged chatter, the partisan origins of Obamagate become clearer. The same anti-Trump hatred on display in their tweets and punditry drove the political espionage. James Kallstrom, the former FBI Assistant Director, notes that the “animus and malice” contained in Brennan’s tweet is “prima facie exposure of how he felt about Trump before the election.”

All the key figures in the decision to open up a probe on Trump wanted him to lose — from Brennan to Peter Strzok, whose anti-Trump machinations included, according to the latest batch of texts with his mistress, plotting to manipulate a buddy on the FISA court. In one text, he wonders if he can finagle a meeting with his friend by inviting him to a “cocktail party.” The impropriety aforethought on display in that tweet is staggering, but of course the media has paid no attention to it, preoccupied as it is with Andrew McCabe’s retirement income.

McCabe, by the way, has removed all doubts about his capacity for partisan lying with his post-firing statement, which rests entirely upon it. With all of its anti-Trump special pleading, the statement reads like it was cobbled together by Rachel Maddow. Like so many other ruling-class frauds, McCabe seeks absolution for his perjury and leaking through liberal politics. I stand with the liberal powerful against Trump, you can’t touch me — that’s the upshot of his defense. Comey has taken the same tack. The title of his forthcoming book should be: How the Law Doesn’t Apply to the Self-Appointed Ruling Class.

What an amazing collection of entitled creeps, who long ago convinced themselves that the “rule of law” is identical to what they see as their sacred right to exercise power in any way they see fit. All the blather about Trump’s violation of the law is simply a projection of their own lawlessness. So far the coup has been thwarted. They had hoped to stop him in the campaign through political espionage. But that didn’t work. Then they tried to upend him through spying during the transition, holding out hope until the very last moment, as evidenced by Susan Rice penning her sham exculpatory note only after Trump’s swearing-in. Now they join Brennan in seeking to bury Trump in Mueller’s dustbin.

Trotsky would have understood the shorthand of all the tweets, polemics, and posturing perfectly. Nothing in this show trial bears any relationship to reality or justice. It is simply an expression of power politics, which doesn’t always end well for its exponents. As even an old Gus Hall supporter like John Brennan must know, and perhaps his fulminating panic indicates a dawning awareness of it, those who talk the loudest about their enemies heading for the ash heap of history often end up in it.

https://spectator.org/john-brennans-thwarted-coup/

[RandomGuy]

John Brennan’s Thwarted Coup

Speaking of criminal investigations:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1vHUNPXUAEKZWP.jpg

[RandomGuy]

:rollin Reck tried this same ABC article yesterday and failed miserably.

"one source told ABC News that Sessions was not aware of the investigation" :lol

December 2017
FBI email: Sessions wasn't required to disclose foreign contacts for security clearance
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/10/politics/jeff-sessions-fbi-russian-contacts/index.html


You brag about caring about the rule of law here is your chance to prove you truly do. Should the DOJ ignored the recommendation of the OIG and the FBI OPR to terminate McCabe yes or no?

You didn't actually read the link or what I posted, did you. :rollin

FAIL. Nothing to do with security paperwork, slick.

[TSA]

976584904304668673

976591527823794176

Looking very likely that McCabe is under criminal investigation

[Pavlov]

:lol anonymous twitter threads

[TSA]

You didn't actually read the link or what I posted, did you. :rollin

FAIL. Nothing to do with security paperwork, slick.

"The Special Counsel's office has informed me that after interviewing the attorney general and conducting additional investigation, the attorney general is not under investigation for false statements or perjury in his confirmation hearing testimony and related written submissions to Congress," attorney Chuck Cooper told ABC News on Wednesday.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-fired-fbi-official-authorized-criminal-probe-sessions/story?id=53914006

You really going to hang your hat on ABC's one source that said Sessions wasn't aware? :lol


You brag about caring about the rule of law here is your chance to prove you truly do. Should the DOJ ignored the recommendation of the OIG and the FBI OPR to terminate McCabe yes or no?

[TSA]

:lol anonymous twitter threads

975461814980022273

[Blake]

975461814980022273

Rofl using "tracybeanz" as a source

[djohn2oo8]

976878686803816448
:lmao :lmao :lmao

[Pavlov]

975461814980022273:lmao Tracybeanz!


What is your conspiracy theory this time, TSA?

[spurraider21]

:lol anonymous twitter threads
not even a large blue circle, smh

[djohn2oo8]

976873166873210880

[spurraider21]

975461814980022273
:lmao right after the highlighted section of the first pic

he got the final report a week ago, including evidence on which it was based, and all exculpatory evidence

[djohn2oo8]

976862749023264769

[TSA]

:lmao right after the highlighted section of the first pic

he got the final report a week ago, including evidence on which it was based, and all exculpatory evidence

McCabe's lawyer got the final report from the OPR, not the OIG.

==================

Assistance of Counsel

The majority of OPR investigations are administrative in nature, and employees are not entitled to counsel as a matter of law. However, counsel may be permitted if counsel does not interfere with or delay the interview. Counsel must be actually retained by the employee as his legal representative, not as an observer. Counsel are not permitted access to certain confidential criminal investigative information and may not be permitted access to grand jury information.

Post Investigation Procedures

At the conclusion of the investigation, OPR prepares a report of investigation in which it makes findings of fact and reaches conclusions as to whether the subject attorney committed professional misconduct. OPR may find the subject attorney committed professional misconduct by: (1) intentionally violating a clear and unambiguous obligation or standard imposed by law, applicable rule of professional conduct, or Department regulation or policy; or (2) recklessly disregarding his obligation to comply with that obligation or standard. OPR may also find that the attorney exercised poor judgment or made a mistake. A poor judgment finding may lead to disciplinary action; a mistake finding does not.

Once OPR completes its report of investigation, the subject attorney and the component head are officially notified of the results of the investigation. If OPR determines that the subject attorney committed professional misconduct, prior to issuing a final report, the subject attorney, pursuant to a confidentiality agreement, and the component head may review the draft report, comment on the factual findings, and offer arguments as to why OPR should alter its conclusions. OPR will consider the comments and incorporate them into the final report, to the extent OPR considers it appropriate.

OPR may include in its report information relating to management and policy issues noted in the course of the investigation for consideration by Department officials.

Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 0.39a and OPR's routine uses under the Privacy Act, OPR also notifies the complainant of the results of the investigation.

https://www.justice.gov/opr/policies-and-procedures#7

[boutons_deux]

Rachel Maddow Reveals That Mueller Could Bust Trump For Accepting Foreign Government Payoffs

"If we're talking about a foreign government paying for those outcomes, that's very blatantly illegal," Maddow said on Wednesday


citing a New York Times report (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/us/politics/george-nader-elliott-broidy-uae-saudi-arabia-white-house-influence.html), Mueller is questioning a witness close to an operation that involved foreign governments essentially paying off the Trump administration under the guise of a fundraiser.

That cooperating witness, George Nader,

could give special counsel investigators damning information,

which has the potential to throw even more legal trouble toward the president.

And as the MSNBC host pointed out,

Nader has been granted immunity by Mueller,

which means he could have key information.

https://www.politicususa.com/2018/03/21/rachel-maddow-unravels-scheme.html


==================

How 2 Gulf Monarchies Sought to Influence the White House

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/us/politics/george-nader-elliott-broidy-uae-saudi-arabia-white-house-influence.html

[spurraider21]

McCabe's lawyer got the final report from the OPR, not the OIG.

==================

Assistance of Counsel

The majority of OPR investigations are administrative in nature, and employees are not entitled to counsel as a matter of law. However, counsel may be permitted if counsel does not interfere with or delay the interview. Counsel must be actually retained by the employee as his legal representative, not as an observer. Counsel are not permitted access to certain confidential criminal investigative information and may not be permitted access to grand jury information.

Post Investigation Procedures

At the conclusion of the investigation, OPR prepares a report of investigation in which it makes findings of fact and reaches conclusions as to whether the subject attorney committed professional misconduct. OPR may find the subject attorney committed professional misconduct by: (1) intentionally violating a clear and unambiguous obligation or standard imposed by law, applicable rule of professional conduct, or Department regulation or policy; or (2) recklessly disregarding his obligation to comply with that obligation or standard. OPR may also find that the attorney exercised poor judgment or made a mistake. A poor judgment finding may lead to disciplinary action; a mistake finding does not.

Once OPR completes its report of investigation, the subject attorney and the component head are officially notified of the results of the investigation. If OPR determines that the subject attorney committed professional misconduct, prior to issuing a final report, the subject attorney, pursuant to a confidentiality agreement, and the component head may review the draft report, comment on the factual findings, and offer arguments as to why OPR should alter its conclusions. OPR will consider the comments and incorporate them into the final report, to the extent OPR considers it appropriate.

OPR may include in its report information relating to management and policy issues noted in the course of the investigation for consideration by Department officials.

Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 0.39a and OPR's routine uses under the Privacy Act, OPR also notifies the complainant of the results of the investigation.

https://www.justice.gov/opr/policies-and-procedures#7
sure, but its the OPR assistance of counsel section where you got the whole "he's not entitled to certain information" stuff

and yet now you're saying he got all the stuff from the OPR